Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Local Authorities (Staffing)

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Graham Page.

Mr. Graham Page: Is the Minister aware that in the Conservative-controlled—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to wait for the answer before asking his supplementary question?
Mr. Graham Page, to ask Question No. 1.

Mr. Graham Page: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent advice he has given to local authorities on staffing.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore): I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on opening Question Time on such an agreeable note.
Following my Department's Circular 84/76 issued in August about local authority expenditure in 1976–78, I met the local authority associations at the consultative council on 20th October. I made it clear to them that, while it was essential to reappraise manpower needs to conform with the provision for local authority expenditure in the financial years 1976–77 and 1977–78, it should be possible to achieve the savings required very largely by natural wastage rather than redundancies.

Mr. Page: Since I was fairly sure what the answer would be, Mr. Speaker, may I now ask the Secretary of State whether he is aware that the Conservative-controlled

Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council, in whose area my constituency lies, has managed, since reorganisation, to employ less staff than were employed before reorganisation by the former boroughs which comprise the new borough?
Has not the Secretary of State been rather slow to use the persuasive and many other powers which he has to stop local authorities using reorganisation as an excuse for swollen local bureaucracy and to ask them to emulate the very good example of my own borough?

Mr. Shore: I can well understand the right hon. Gentleman's sensitivity about charges that reorganisation might have led to growth in the number of local authority employees. After all, he played a very prominent part in setting up the present structure of local government. I do not think that anyone other than the authors of reorganisation would absolve the reorganised local authorities from the charge that, whatever else their virtues may be, there has been a very great increase in staff employed. Sefton is probably an exception to the rule, if what the right hon. Gentleman said is true, as I am sure it is. It is not the general experience.
In approaching local authorities, we have urged upon them the need to look very carefully at their manpower needs and, above all, to conform to the figures for total local government expenditure laid down in the February White Paper.

Mr. Madden: Is not the reluctance of the Opposition to listen to advice on this matter a clear indication that the reorganisation of local government led to an inevitable increase in staff? Will my right hon. Friend give some indication of the growth since reorganisation in the number of those who administer the services as opposed to those who deliver them?
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that standards will not be allowed to deteriorate because of synthetic attacks by the Opposition on staffing levels, and that it is most important to maintain public expenditure—[Interruption]—in order to maintain services which are of importance?

Mr. Speaker: There is no sense in the length of some of the supplementary questions. I appeal to hon. Members who


are now shouting to be brief with their own supplementary questions—if they are lucky enough to be called.

Mr. Shore: It is undoubtedly true that there has been a considerable growth—of the order of 4 per cent. per annum—in local government manpower since reorganisation. In the last year, however, it has been slowed down. Indeed, the last figures we have for local government employment show that the growth was under 1 per cent. in the year up to June 1976. I would expect that there will be a standstill situation by the end of this year.
It is, of course, important to maintain standards—I think we are all deeply aware of that—but I believe that much can be done by a better deployment of existing resources than has at present been achieved.

Mr. Raison: The Secretary of State accepts, I think, that Government policy will entail some redundancies in local government next year. Is he able to give us any idea how many redundancies there are likely to be as a result of Government action? Will he also give us an assurance that where local authorities are forced to implement redundancies they will have his backing?

Mr. Shore: It would, of course, be wrong for me to say that no redundancies will arise. I do not think that any Secretary of State could have given such an assurance at any time in relation to local authorities. I do say, however, that redundancies should be exceptional and local, as the savings required overall—that is, nationally—should be capable of being contained within the margins of natural wastage of staff.

Council Housing Standards

Mr. Penhaligon: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the building standards applied in local authority house building.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Penhaligon: I thank the Minister for that detailed answer. Will he comment on the assertion made by some people that about £50 million a year could be saved if the standards used for

building council houses were those of the NHBC instead of Parker Morris, or the alternative assertion that we could build 25,000 more houses a year for the same money?

Mr. Freeson: I do not know where those assertions are made, and I should be interested to receive more detailed submissions. I would study them with great interest. I know that schemes have been introduced by local authorities for building for sale, with our support, at different standards than Parker Morris which have resulted in savings. But they have been savings well below what has been broadly claimed for these schemes where they have been changed from Parker Morris to somewhat different standards operated in the private sector.
As for the possibility of building more homes from the same resources, although I should be interested to hear further details of the figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman, I prefer at present to press for greater efficiency on building sites. The loss of material in building site work is such that 13,000 dwellings-worth of material is being lost each year.

Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, quite apart from the principle of not lowering standards on public sector building, it would produce a strange anomaly in that we could have a situation where prospective Liberal candidates were running around these second-class housing estates playing at community politics in order to get on local councils?

Mr. Freeson: I cannot speak for the Liberal Party. On a suitable occasion I have no doubt that Liberal Party Members will speak for themselves. There is no intention on our part to reduce standards. However, there is scope for looking at greater flexibility in the use of basic standards in the public sector. That we are prepared to do and are doing.

Housing (Co-ordination)

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the degree of co-ordination between his Department and local authorities on housing matters.

Mr. Shore: We continue to have close contact with local housing authorities. But, as I have indicated before, I am


seeking a new relationship with housing authorities which, within firm capital budgets, would allow them greater freedom to tailor their housing investment programmes to local needs.

Mr. Beith: Do the present closer contacts make the Secretary of State realise that many rural local authorities do not think that they will be able to meet the obligation to be placed upon them under the tied cottage legislation without some relaxation of the restrictions on the treatment of stress areas? Why is his Department being so obstructive with those local authorities, like Alnwick district, for example, which want to buy just a few privately-built unoccupied houses to meet urgent housing needs?

Mr. Shore: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question about Alnwick District Council off the cuff. However, on the broader question of the tied cottage legislation, this matter was thoroughly debated in the House, and if there is an opportunity it can be debated further. Our general view—it was not simply a Department of the Environment view but arose out of consultation with local authorities—was that the new obligation could be met by local authorities out of their existing programmes.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there is sufficient co-ordination between the different parts of his Department when dealing with the same authority—for instance, when one part of his Department tells a local authority that it can demolish a housing area and when another part of it refuses to give permission to rebuild?

Mr. Shore: If my hon. Friend will give me details of his illustration, as he sees it, of contrary policies emanating from the same Department, I shall be pleased to look into them and see whether I can reconcile them.

Labour-only Sub-contractors

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue a circular to local authorities requesting them not to issue tender documents for contracts which seek to exclude the employment of labour-only sub-contractors by the main contractor.

Mr. Freeson: No, Sir.

Mr. Ridley: Why not? When will this Government realise that the efficiency of the building industry should come before encouragement giving the Trotskyites and Communists the power to cheat decent working people of their livings?

Mr. Freeson: I am not sure whether I should rise to that bait or even answer the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. But it is far from the truth to suggest that the great growth in "lump" labour which occurred a few years ago contributed to greater efficiency in the building industry.

Mr. Ridley: But it did.

Mr. Spriggs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the worst examples of jerry-building to be found in the country are in the private building sector?

Mr. Skinner: John Poulson did a few.

Mr. Freeson: Certainly over decades past we have had experience of jerry-building which we should seek to do our best to avoid. It is not for me to say that it is operating on the same scale as was the case in past decades. I do not think that it is. But there is a need to tighten up efficiency and the quality of work in the building industry. To advocate a return to massive "lump" labour employment in the industry, as the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) does, would act against such a policy.

Windscale (Nuclear Reprocessing)

Mr. Forman: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will call in the planning application submitted by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. for the expansion of its nuclear reprocessing facilities at Windscale.

Mr. Shore: I understand that the planning committee of the Cumbria County Council decided yesterday that it was minded to approve, subject to agreement of appropriate conditions, the planning application, but that the application should first be referred to me as a departure from the development plan. I will decide what action to take when I have studied its representations.

Mr. Forman: Whatever action the Secretary of State decides to take, will he undertake now to make a detailed


statement to the House about this matter within the next 21 days and give special consideration to the idea of calling in that part of the application relating to oxide fuel reprocessing, which is the most sensitive aspect of the expansion plans of BNFL and which has caused most concern not only in the Royal Commission reports on environmental pollution but also among local residents?

Mr. Shore: I think that I should wait until I receive the observations in the letter from the Cumbria County Council which, I understand, is on its way to me now, and, of course, I shall consider reporting to the House on any decision that I make.

Mr. David Steel: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he did not call in this application in the first place since the implications of the decision go far beyond the interests of Cumbria alone? Will he give a more firm undertaking to report to the House on the matter and not merely consider reporting?

Mr. Shore: I am quite willing to give that assurance. I will report to the House. I had to consider this, and I did. I considered it under two separate responsibilities—that is to say, as the Minister concerned with planning and planning applications, and also in my other role as guardian of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, in which I have a quite separate responsibility to satisfy myself about the safety of the disposal of nuclear wastes. I can assure the House that I shall exercise that responsibility to the full.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: Has my right hon. Friend seen the statement by the Chairman of Cumbria County Council yesterday that a local planning authority is not competent to judge the safety standards of pollution or the security of fissile material? In view of this, and since the matters raise concern well beyond Cumbria, will he accept the view of the Town and Country Planning Association that the planning of these matters should be undertaken at a national rather than at a local level?

Mr. Shore: The safety considerations are those which most concern people who have urged me and the county council either to refuse or to call in the

application. But I must point out that not only have I myself the responsibilities which I mentioned under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 but that there is a further separate responsibility for nuclear installations of all kinds which falls upon my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. These responsibilities are exercised with very great care over every stage of the construction of nuclear power stations and nuclear-associated facilities.

Mr. Thompson: When he is taking his decision, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the rising tide of public opinion in the Solway area against the concentration in the area of so many of the country's dangerous nuclear industries?

Mr. Shore: Obviously a number of people have written to me, and there was a public meeting in Cumbria itself during which these matters were thrashed out and discussed by all the local interests involved. But it is only fair and proper to say that the overwhelming opinion at the public meeting, which was well advertised before being held, was in favour of going ahead with the project and expressed considerable confidence in the safety procedures.

Rate Support Grant

Mr. MacGregor: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has completed his negotiations for the rate support grant settlement for next year; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Shore: No. I will make a statement as soon as the negotiations are completed.

Mr. MacGregor: Can the Secretary of State bring the House up to date on the figures for local authority overspending this year? What does he intend to do about this in the grant next year? Does he realise that any reduction in the rate support grant next year in real terms will mean redundancies in local authority staffs? Will he, in fairness to the staffs, ensure that there is no further switch, as has been the practice over the last two years, from the fast-growing country areas to the depopulated inner urban areas?

Mr. Shore: I cannot give any assurance one way or the other on the particular formula which I will adopt for


distribution of the grant. I have made it my business to listen very carefully to spokesmen from different local authority associations about their different interests.
The overspending situation has improved. A few months ago when we talked about overspending we were talking about £400 million; now we are talking in terms of £150 million to £200 million. While it is right that this over-spend should not continue into 1977–78—and I intend to see that it does not—I do not accept that the necessary economies which need to be made will involve the redundancies to which the hon. Member has referred.

Mr. Hardy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when he makes the statement it will not be as outrageously and disgracefully inaccurate as the last rate support grant statement made by the Conservatives on 22nd January 1974? Will he remind the House of the outrageous inaccuracies stated on that occasion?

Mr. Shore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have not delved into the history of the ill-doings of my predecessors but, now that my hon. Friend has invited me to do so, I will.

Mr. Graham Page: I completely deny what the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) has said. Has the Secretary of State considered new procedures in settling the rate support grant so that in future it can be settled long before the last week in November? Great inconvenience has been caused to local authorities through this procedure which has been adopted by Governments over many years. So that local authorities will know what they can get much earlier in the year, will he consider a change?

Mr. Shore: I think that for a number of years November has been accepted as the month in which the settlement should be made. However, I am willing to hear representations on matters of this kind to see whether things can be made easier for local authorities, which have to budget ahead and obviously would welcome as much time as possible.

Mr. Speed: As the Secretary of State has had meetings with the TUC on this matter, will he also meet Members of this House, members of the CBI and representatives of ratepayers' action groups?

Mr. Shore: I have never cut myself off from hon. Members who wish to see me. As we approach the rate support grant determination, however, the physical ability of Ministers to see the very many different groups who have a legitimate interest is limited.

Horse Guards Parade (Parking Permits)

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment by what percentage the number of passes issued for parking on the Horse Guards Parade has increased or decreased since October 1974.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): The number of passes issued has increased by approximately 6 per cent.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Does the Minister feel that he is fulfilling his duties in protecting the environment by allowing such an annual increase in the number of these passes issued to privileged people parking in what is, after all, a public place? What categories of people are entitled to park free of charge on Horse Guards Parade?

Mr. Howell: The 6 per cent. to which I referred was in the year for which the hon. Gentleman asked; it is not an annual increase. Some of the passes have gone to departmental staff who are increasingly required to work outside the hours when public transport is available. Also, some of the increase is due to the fact that we have had to accommodate the temporary closure of the old Admiralty car park while an emergency power station is being erected in the Vicinity. That will be completed in August 1978, and a substantial number of the passes for Horse Guards Parade will then cease.

Mr. Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend suggesting that these people with parking passes are working such anti-social hours that it is impossible for them to use public transport? Is it still Government policy to dissuade people from bringing private cars into central London?

Mr. Howell: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is "Yes". These are the people who work for Ministers of the Government, and it is because they are required to work


the anti-social hours which we in this House inflict on them and ourselves that this situation has arisen.

Housing Finance Review

Sir George Young: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish his Department's housing finance review.

Mr. Shore: I hope that the review will be completed by the end of the year.

Sir G. Young: Pending the much-delayed publication of the review, will the Secretary of State tell the House that the call at the Labour Party Conference for a total freeze on council house rents is totally unrealistic, given the economic crisis and the need to reduce indiscriminate subsidies?

Mr. Shore: No doubt the hon. Gentleman follows my party conference as closely as I do. But I was there, and I do not recall any resolution calling for a total freeze on council house rents in the coming year. If there had been such a call, I would have said that it was not one which this Government could accept.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Will the Secretary of State undertake to seek comments from local authorities which have had successful experience in building houses for sale to people who might otherwise have sought council tenancies, with considerable financial benefits to capital and revenue accounts resulting from this policy?

Mr. Shore: I have no objection at all to councils building houses for sale, but we have found that there are not very many councils which have so far operated this policy.

Listed Buildings

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if it is his intention to vary the General Development Order in such a manner as to remove from local authorities the need for them to notify his Department of any planned changes to the existing state of listed buildings, other than grade I or grade II.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): Yes, Sir. I intend to make an amendment to the General Development Order when a suitable opportunity arises.

Mr. Adley: Is the Minister aware that that will be bad news to many people who regard these listed buildings as a vital part of the historic fabric of our towns, cities and countryside? Will he consider, in the light of what he has said, making notifiable to amenity societies any proposed planning changes which are not to be notified to his Department? That would avoid the unacceptable planning by-products that will result from what he has just announced, such as the unacceptable disfigurements from supermarket developments which we have had over the years.

Mr. Barnett: This change does not in any way diminish the degree of listed building control. The change has already occurred in one place, in a direction which has only recently required planning authorities to notify the Secretary of State of all grade II buildings. The reason for the change was that there was a considerable waste of staff time in the Department of the Environment, as was evidenced by the fact that 11,000 of these applications came before the Department in two years but only seven were called in. I would welcome the need for amenity societies to be made aware by the local planning authority. The best chance we have of preserving these buildings is to encourage active public participation.

Mr. Newens: Does my hon. Friend accept that not all local authorities are equally concerned about the preservation of historic and architectural merit? Therefore, it is vital that the Government, at central level, should continue to take a firm stand in defence of listed buildings.

Mr. Barnett: This must be a locally determined matter. It is impossible for the Government to have a close interest in every listed building in the country. When it is obvious that the planning committee of a particular local authority does not take enough interest in listed buildings, the local amenity societies do, and they maintain a check on this.

Mr. Marten: When a grade II building is burned to the ground, does the local authority have the power to say that it need not be rebuilt, particularly in present economic circumstances?

Mr. Barnett: I cannot answer that without notice.

Council House Building

Mr. Ovenden: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the number of public sector housing starts for 1976; and what is his policy towards the level in future years.

Mr. Shore: Starts and completions in the public sector are likely to be higher this year than last, when they were 174,000 and 162,000 respectively. In 1977, starts will be lower but completions are again expected to exceed the 1975 figure.

Mr. Ovenden: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the likely level of future starts by English local authorities will be around 100,000 a year in future years? Is he aware that that figure is only three-quarters of the level achieved by the Labour Government of 1966 to 1970? Is he aware that in many quarters of the Labour Party there is concern that the Government are abandoning their commitment to maintaining a house-building programme which was an essential feature of their first two years of office?

Mr. Shore: I accept that the starts will be lower next year than they have been in 1975–76. There is no point in disguising that, and I would not dream of doing so. But there is a contrast between the Labour Governments of 1964 to 1970 and this one. Under the earlier Governments there was a massive emphasis on new building. The emphasis now is on rehabilitation and improvement as well as on new building.

Mr. Michael Latham: In view of the broad hints given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Labour Party economic committee yesterday, may I ask whether the Secretary of State expects to get beyond Christmas without having to announce further cuts in the public housing programme?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman has the advantage of me. I found myself rather heavily engaged on other matters this morning and, therefore, I have not read what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Liverpool the local Labour-controlled authority is faced with the Liberals and Conservatives combining to stop the development of local authority housing because of an argument about the sale in the past of council housing? Will he look into this and ensure that the local authority is given support?

Mr. Shore: I included Liverpool in the stress areas. By definition, therefore, it is an area in which we judge new house building to be clearly required. I do not know of the obstacles that my hon. Friend has mentioned in terms of the disagreements within the council, but if it is appropriate for me to intervene in a helpful way I shall consider doing so.

Mr. Raison: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) that the figure of 100,000, which he quoted for starts in England next year, is too high? Will he confirm that the Government's own figure is about 85,000?

Mr. Shore: I think that the hon. Gentleman is nearly right on starts. We have said that on average we expect to achieve 100,000 per year over the two years. This year the figure looks as thought it will exceed 100,000—it could run to 110,000. This would mean, therefore, that there would be proportionately fewer starts next year. The figure could be 90,000, but it would depend upon the balance between the two years.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the Secretary of State take on board the earlier questions about co-operation between local authorities and private house builders? Is he aware that this is one way of surmounting the inevitable shortfall which lies ahead? Is it not important for local authorities and private builders to get together to build houses in the lower price range, and should not greater encouragement be given to housing societies which can renovate older types of properties more cheaply?

Mr. Shore: If it would help to sustain the house-building programme within the inevitable constraint on public expenditure, we should be anxious to look at any suggestions, including those of the hon. Gentleman.

Rent Officers

Mr. Russell Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the future rôle of rent officers.

Mr. Freeson: The method of fixing fair rents, for which rent officers are responsible, is one of the matters to be examined in the review of the Rent Acts now being undertaken.

Mr. Johnston: In view of the valuable work that rent officers have done and the expertise they have accumulated, will the right hon. Gentleman consider extending their activities to advising local authorities, since there are considerable fluctuations in rent levels for the same accommodation between different authorities?

Mr. Freeson: There is no reason why local authorities should not consult whomever they wish on a normal type of informal basis to help them come to a view about the deployment of rents in their areas. I shall consider whether there is a need to examine this matter in the context of the Rent Acts review, but I should not have thought that there was.

Mr. Evelyn King: Are not unfurnished houses valued on a net rateable value basis by the district valuation officer? What is the point of having two separate officials valuing the same house? What additional function do rent officers perform, if rents are to be controlled, which could not be better carried out on the basis of the NRV?

Mr. Freeson: I recall extensive arguments on that and related points when the 1965 Rent Act was passing through the House. Arguments were presented and conclusions reached against that approach. At this stage I can say only that all such views and representations will be considered as part of the Rent Acts review. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a submission, we will consider it appropriately.

Mr. George Cunningham: Is not the difference between a valuation officer and a rent officer that, among other things, a rent officer goes to the place and sees the premises whereas a valuation officer goes nowhere near them?

Mr. Freeson: I am not sure that I should risk being drawn too far down that

road. In general, however, I believe that my hon. Friend is right. It would be physically impossible for the valuation officer to visit every house, but that is inevitably a part of the rent officer's duties when he is dealing with individual applications for changes in rent.

Mr. Rossi: Has the Minister given further thought to the anomaly that exists which depends on whether the landlord is resident? In one case the tenant goes to the rent officer and in the other he goes to a rent tribunal. Similarly, in one case he gets awarded a fair rent and in the other he gets a reasonable rent. This is an unsatisfactory arrangement. Does it imply the eventual phasing out of rent officers or rent tribunals?

Mr. Freeson: I do not know what the word "this" refers to. We have undertaken a review of the Rent Acts. The point that the hon. Gentleman raises was raised during the deliberations of the Francis Committee when the merging of the two services was considered. It is not impossible to consider this matter as part of the review, but it is not for me to say today what conclusions might be reached in the review.

Council Housing Programme (Social Effects)

Mr. Hooson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the social consequences of the current council house-building programme.

Mr. Freeson: During 1974–76 a total of 416,000 dwellings were or will have been started by local authorities, new towns and housing associations, so that by the end of 1977 approximately 430,000 dwellings will have been completed. Thus about 1·3 million people have been or will be housed in good-quality publicly-owned dwellings in the period 1975 to 1977.

Mr. Hooson: Does not the Minister consider it socially desirable to bring up the younger generations to be owner-occupiers? Is not one of the ways of doing that for councils to be encouraged to build new dwellings for sale and to maintain most of their existing stock for letting?

Mr. Freeson: I find this concerted campaign of questions from the Liberals on


this matter most interesting. However, they come about 18 months—or perhaps even more—too late. I refer them not only to the various speeches and statements by myself and my hon. Friends in the Department but to the policy circular "Housing Needs and Action" which we issued and which covered precisely the sort of points which are being made by the Liberals today.

Mr. Ovenden: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the serious social consequences which could develop from the future decline in the council house-building programme? What answer does he intend to give to Shelter, which has criticised the singling out of so-called stress areas on the ground that there is an acute shortage of rented accommodation in all areas of the country?

Mr. Freeson: I do not wish to get involved in a detailed discussion of the Shelter statement except to say that I accept parts of it but that it would be wrong for me to accept it in full or generally. My hon. Friend is quite right. If there is a reduction in house building in areas of shortage or where there are large numbers of properties to be cleared rather than rehabilitated, it means that people will be continuing to live in conditions in which they should not be expected to live.
However, the Government have to act within the prevailing economic circumstances, and housing could not escape unscathed from the recent review of public expenditure. I repeat what my right hon. Friend said earlier. We shall do our best to protect housing programmes—whether new building, rehabilitation or housing association programmes—in the areas most hard hit, the priority stress areas. We shall be developing and refining this policy in the housing policy review which we are now carrying out.

Mr. Arthur Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman see in his proposals for extending the work of direct labour departments a significant contribution to the effective use of labour resources in the industry? What criteria has he for the operation of direct labour departments?

Mr. Freeson: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is "Yes". I wish to see an expansion of efficient direct labour organisations. The

answer to the second part of the question will be put before the House when we introduce legislation on this matter not too long from now.

New Towns

Mr. Newens: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future development of new towns, in the light of current housing needs.

Mr. Shore: No, Sir. I shall report to the House as soon as the review of future policy on dispersal is completed.

Mr. Newens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us who were born in inner city areas welcome the Government's intention to pay more attention to those areas in future? However, will he also reassure some of us who are concerned with new towns that there will be no diversion of resources from them as this would lead to a lengthening of housing waiting lists for second-generation and other applicants which many of us would feel bound to oppose very strongly?

Mr. Shore: I welcome what my hon. Friend, as one who was born in an inner city area, has said about the new stress we are putting on helping those areas. As to the future role of new towns, we are proceeding with the review and I hope that we shall be able to complete it and make an announcement at an early date.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a growing feeling in my part of Lancashire that the Central Lancashire New Town is no longer required and that, if it is proceeded with, it will have a very adverse effect on other, older parts of the county on which any available money could be very much better spent?

Mr. Shore: I note what the hon. Lady says. She will probably know that the outline plan decision on the CLNT is before me. I hope to come to a conclusion on it as soon as possible.

Water Resources (North-West England)

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for the further integration


of water resources in North-West England.

Mr. Denis Howell: The North-West Water Authority has executive responsibility for the management of all water resources in its area and I have no plans at present to make any change in these arrangements.

Mr. Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that any attempt to nationalise the Chester Waterworks Company would not be welcomed by my constituents? In the event of his doing so, by how much does he estimate that the cost of water would increase?

Mr. Howell: When I make a statement shortly on the future of water supplies, the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question might be relevant. Most of the operations of the company to which he refers are not in the North-West Water Authority's area but in the area of the Welsh National Water Development Authority. Many of us have noted in this dry summer that the exclusion of private companies from the water industry as a whole has been regrettable.

Mr. Wigley: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to resources in Wales which serve North-West England. Is he aware that water from Wales for industry in the North-West is sold at about half the price at which it is available in Wales and that water taken from Wales by the North-West authorities is sold back to Wales at a much higher price? Does he not agree that it would be equitable for Wales to have more benefit from its resources?

Mr. Howell: I am well aware of the fact that in this dry summer the Welsh people have had cause to be grateful for the large-scale investment by Lancashire, Liverpool and the Midlands in establishing water industries in Wales. If we had not had those resources available to us, we might have been in an extremely difficult situation.
The undertakings which were built by municipal authorities—what might be termed municipal Socialism—have brought tremendous benefits in rateable value and employment to the areas concerned.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although I realise that there is an advantage to Merseyside under the present arrangements, hon. Members from Wales have a point? Will he look at the matters which our Welsh colleagues have raised?

Mr. Howell: I am not quite sure what point my hon. Friend thinks that our Welsh colleagues have. There is a discrepancy about charges, but the Government's proposals for a degree of equalisation will considerably assist in that direction and will be forthcoming in the not too distant future.

Mr. Speed: How can the right hon. Gentleman justify the extraordinary slur on water companies contained in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison)? Has he one scrap of evidence to show that they have failed in their duties? Is he aware that I consider that the 28 water companies have done as well as, if not better than, the regional water authorities?

Mr. Howell: I made no slur on the companies. I observed that at a time of national water shortage the policy of excluding private companies from the totality of available water resources has turned out to be nonsense.

Housing Expenditure

Mr. Douglas-Mann: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied that the present distribution of public expenditure on housing as between subsidies and investment or improvement is the most effective in order to relieve housing needs and sustain employment in the construction industry.

Mr. Shore: No, Sir.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I welcome that brief reply, but will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in the last seven or eight years we have been spending two and a half or three times as much on investment in new building and improvements as we have on subsidising mortgages and council rents? Even accepting the current restraints on public expenditure, does he not consider that we could achieve better results? Does he agree that we are effectively subsidising those who have satisfactory housing at the expense of those who desperately


need it and those who work in the industry which could supply it?

Mr. Shore: We have to accept that we are operating on a very tight budget for housing expenditure, and we must therefore try to get the best results within that budget. I would not say that I think that the right distribution has been achieved between subsidies and investment, new building, modernisation and other work. However, there is an additional problem. It is not just a matter of the best possible housing policy. Housing and rent policy must play a part in the broader counter-inflation policy.

Mr. Rossi: In simple language, does that answer mean that council rents must inevitably rise if the right hon. Gentleman envisages transferring money from housing subsidies to further investment and improvements?

Mr. Shore: Council house rents have risen this year and will inevitably rise next year. The question to which we must address ourselves is whether, in the context of the counter-inflation policy, the rise is to be one which can be borne by council tenants or one which will be unacceptably high. We have to make a judgment on that matter.

Mr. Skinner: Why should council house rents rise and why should it be planned that housing subsidies be cut, relatively speaking, at a time when the Government found it possible to have £70 million transferred for the use of the Slater Walker debacle that took place in November 1975?

Mr. Shore: I assure my hon. Friend that, other things being equal, if I could lay my hands on that £70 million I should like to deploy it in my housing programme. We have to face the fact that the present situation partly reflects the much higher levels of interest rates that have persisted in recent years and the fact that rent income for housing revenue accounts accounts for historically a low part of the total.

Mr. Dykes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister for Housing and Construction has three times obstinately refused to receive a deputation from Harrow with an ingenious and imaginative idea for a home-purchase scheme that would provide additional topping-up

on a mortgage or loan over and above the normal one, which would enable people to buy council houses on a total subsidy element far smaller than the existing subsidy on new buildings?

Mr. Shore: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be most receptive to any proposals for topping up loans or anything else which is relevant and helpful to the housing situation. I advise the hon. Gentleman to write to my right hon. Friend on the matter.

Water Supplies

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the operation of the Drought Act.

Mr. Michael Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the advance warning system for anticipation of a water shortage.

Mr. Denis Howell: Yes, Sir, the Drought Act was of considerable importance in enabling the water industry to meet the unprecedented drought situation. I am satisfied that in conjunction with the water industry we can build on this year's experience to ensure the earliest possible warning of any recurrent water supply problems next year. I shall be making a statement on all these matters very shortly.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the procedure involved in making an application for powers under the Drought Act was so long that the Welsh National Water Development Authority was suffering from flooding as opposed to the drought for which it wanted powers to act?

Mr. Howell: No. I think that that supplementary question shows considerable confusion. Fortunately, some of the many hundreds of orders made under the Drought Act could be made within a matter of days. If they were of a more substantial and permanent character, obviously we could not use the Draconian powers in the Act without giving the owners of property and land a proper opportunity to make representations and the Secretary of State a reasonable time in which to determine the applications. However, I can assure the House that in


all cases the process was considerably shorter than is normally the case for such applications.

Mr. Heffer: Does my right hon. Friend realise that he is regarded by Labour Members, and probably throughout the country, as the most successful Minister we have ever had?

Mr. Jopling: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the emergency arrangements that are now in force to extract extra water from the Lake District have been agreed readily by interests in the Lake District? Is he further aware that once the reservoirs in the Lake District are full, as they are now becoming, there would be the greatest resentment if he were to use his powers to violate the solemn undertakings given by his predecessors to ensure that water is extracted from the area in a way which does not violate the amenities and beauties of the area? It is important that the Minister ensures that the area is not ruined by short-term steps.

Mr. Howell: I am extremely appreciative of the co-operation we have had from interests within the Lake District in this national emergency, and I pay tribute to it. Now that the temporary situation is over, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must take all proper steps to safeguard that magnificent environment, and I certainly intend to do so.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that there will definitely be a debate on the Green Paper and the drought report this year? If not, what are the Government being so tardy about?

Mr. Howell: I am sure that if the Opposition wish to use one of their Supply Days for a debate we shall have a debate. I have promised to make a statement to the House as soon as possible in this Session, and I hope to do so next week. We shall see what the Opposition make of the statement.

Water Service

Mr. Durant: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to introduce legislation implementing the proposals outlined in his Green Paper on the water service.

Mr. Shore: The very substantial response to the Green Paper is still being analysed. I look forward to future legislation, but no final decisions on timing have yet been taken.

Mr. Durant: In future legislation, will the right hon. Gentleman take account of the recent legislation passed by the House on charges to those who are not connected to the sewerage system? Is he aware that that legislation has resulted in a great loss of financial revenue to the water authorities and placed an extra strain on the remaining households?

Mr. Shore: The recent legislation may have imposed costs directly on the water authorities, but I do not think anyone would doubt that it conferred great benefits on water consumers throughout the country. As for the scope of the legislation which we hope eventually to bring before the House, it is too early for me to comment on the particular proposals being put forward, but we hope that the legislation will strengthen the organisation of the water industry nationally.

Mr. Hardy: Although it may be unreasonable to demand that general water legislation should be introduced next Session, will my right hon. Friend at least ensure that a small and uncontentious Bill is brought before the House to deal with the severe problem, of which I know his right hon. Friend is aware, concerning those not connected to the main sewers?

Mr. Shore: I shall consider what my hon. Friend has said, but I think he will realise that the question of the size of the legislative programme is a very difficult one and is more for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Mr. Madel: Mention has been made of the Drought Act. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the time scale in implementing that Act? Is he aware that the Thames Water Authority applied for restrictions on 18th August but that they were not signed until 13th September? The Anglia Water Authority had equal difficulty. Surely the Minister must look afresh at existing legislation if we are to avoid great difficulties if we have another drought next summer.

Mr. Shore: I should like notice of the instance that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. General experience has been


that the operation of bringing drought orders into effect under entirely new legislation, and at short notice, has been very successful.

Mr. Urwin: In his dealings with the water service, will my right hon. Friend seek to use his considerable influence to ensure that water authorities are given instructions to purchase British cars for their employees? I had visual evidence this morning of a Japanese Toyota car carrying the insignia of the Thames Water Authority. Bearing in mind the plight of the British motor industry, is it not disgraceful that this situation should be allowed?

Mr. Shore: I hope that what my hon. Friend has said about the desirability of buying British cars wherever possible will be noted not only by the water authorities but by all those who can exercise decisions in this matter. My hon. Friend gives excellent advice.

Scotland (Expenditure)

Mr. Rifkind: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the level of expenditure of his Department over the last 12 months in respect of the fulfilment of its responsibilities in Scotland.

Mr. Denis Howell: Approximately £75 million. Most of this related to the provision of accommodation for Government Departments in Scotland.

Mr. Rifkind: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that with the creation of the Department of Transport his Department has virtually no responsibilities left in Scotland? Would it not be more convenient for administrative and other purposes for the Government to consider transferring the remaining functions to the Scottish Office?

Mr. Howell: That is not a matter for me, but I am sure that when the devolution proposals are considered it will be a matter of great interest and concern to the House as well as to the Government.

Local Authority Housing (Sale)

Mr. Cyril Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment which authorities have undertaken building-for-sale housing programmes during the last five years; what was the cost to public

funds of each programme after sales were completed; what would be the cost of providing rented accommodation on similar scales; what proportion of sales in each case was achieved by way of local authority mortgages; and what proportion of buyers had been local authority tenants immediately prior to purchase.

Mr. Freeson: Table 13 of "Local Housing Statistics" No. 37 and earlier issues, copies of which are available in the Library, give a breakdown of sales of dwellings owned by each local authority in England and Wales and identify those which were built for sale. I regret that the further information requested by the hon. Gentleman is not readily available.

Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the happy experience of the Liverpool City Council in building houses for sale? Will he undertake to examine that experience? If he is satisfied that it is a happy one—my right hon. and hon. Friends are so satisfied—will he undertake to advocate it to other local authorities for their consideration?

Mr. Freeson: One of the troubles with orchestrating the kind of programme of questions that we have had today from the Liberal Bench is that one turns out to be a little precipitate in some of the observations. As I understand it, the houses in question in Liverpool have not yet been built, so one can hardly be happy about it. [Interruption.] Secondly, I would consider it far more important—[Interruption.] I would consider it far more important for the Liberal Member who is interrupting me to speak to his colleagues in Liverpool and explain to us in the Department and to other people why so few houses were built by his Liberal friends in Liverpool last year.

Mr. Heffer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the statement made by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) is utter nonsense? There are 25,000 people on the housing register in Liverpool who need houses to rent. They cannot afford to buy houses. They require those houses because they are living in very serious circumstances. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in Liverpool we need houses to rent rather than houses for sale, and that Liverpool


City Council—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—prior to the accession of the Labour majority, failed to build the houses that were needed by the people?

Mr. Freeson: My own view, as indicated in policy circulars that we have issued, is that public enterprise must get involved in providing a much greater variety of different kinds of tenure down market than has been the case in the past, whether they be for rent, for co-operative housing or for low-cost housing for sale. What concerns me with regard to Liverpool is my hon. Friend's reference to recent history prior to the last elections. A great deal of paper has been pouring out from the Liverpool City authority in recent years, but very few dwellings indeed, either for rent or for sale.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is the Minister aware that his reply to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) was inaccurate? I visited Liverpool during the recess. What the hon. Member for Rochdale says is fact, and as a Minister of the Crown the right hon. Gentleman ought to get his facts straight before he denies the contents of a question.

Mr. Freeson: I am pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman has been to Merseyside and Liverpool and has discovered all the happy people who are so satisfied with the building record of the friends of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith). I have met many people who are far from satisfied with the results of that period of office.

MAIL SERVICES (GRUNWICK PROCESSING LABORATORIES LTD.)

Mr. Gorst: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely,
the actions of the Post Office workers in failing to deliver mail to Grunwick Processing Laboratories Ltd., contrary to the provisions of the Post Office Act 1953.
The matter is important because the General Secretary of the Union of Post Office Workers has today thrown down the gauntlet in a printed statement in today's newspapers, which says,

The Post Office Act was written many years ago and it has never been tested in relation to sympathetic industrial action. Until it is, as far as our union is concerned, we are going to support these workers.
This is the first time that any illegal action of this sort has occurred, and it should be urgently considered by this House not just because 300 people may lose their jobs the day after tomorrow but because if this action succeeds this time and a small company is put out of business within seven days of the interruption of its mail deliveries, such illegal action will have been shown to work, and it may, therefore, be extended into other fields with far-reaching and serious consequences.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration; namely,
the actions of the Post Office workers in failing to deliver mail to Grunwick Processing Laboratories Ltd., contrary to the provisions of the Post Office Act 1953.
The hon. Member gave me notice that he would be raising this matter. When the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) made his application yesterday, he did so without warning. I take no exception to that, because his application arose out of exchanges across the Floor of the House.
This is a new application, to which I have given considerable consideration. I am satisfied that the matter raised by the hon. Member is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 9. Does the hon. Member have the leave of the House?

The leave of the House having been given—

Mr. Speaker: The motion for the Adjournment of the House will now stand over until the commencement of public business tomorrow, when a debate on the matter will take place for three hours.

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that in most of today's newspapers there is a story that the business proposed for next Monday is not to take place but that there are to be three short debates on guillotine motions relating to


Lords amendments? Can you advise me how to protect the interests of hon. Members, such that statements about the business of this House are made in the House by the Leader of the House and not made to the Press, so that hon. Members may question the Leader of the House upon his intentions?

Mr. Skinner: Mr. Skinner rose—

Mr. Speaker: On the same point of order, Mr. Skinner.

Mr. Skinner: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you would look into the situation when your predecessor dealt with the matter of the last postal strike—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is seeking in any way to challenge my ruling—

Mr. Skinner: No, I am asking a question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to allow the hon. Gentleman to give me advice when I reach decisions of this sort.

Mr. Skinner: Mr. Skinner rose—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman had better understand that he is not going to advise me on this matter. If he has a point of order unrelated to it, I shall listen. Otherwise, I shall ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.

Mr. Skinner: What I want to do, Mr. Speaker, is to draw to the attention of the House—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot use this opportunity to draw matters to the attention of the House. If he has a point of order for me, he will address it to me now.

Mr. Skinner: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is a point of order. I wonder whether you would consider the situation regarding the last postal strike, the national strike in 1971—

Mr. Speaker: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.
With regard to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), the hon. Member knows that that is not a matter for me.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Spriggs: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. From what you have ruled today, it appears that there will be a change of business somewhat tomorrow. As there is to be a debate on transport tomorrow, will you advise the House about the change of business?

Mr. Speaker: All I have done is to say that the first three hours tomorrow will be available for a debate on the matter to which I have referred. No doubt it will be made clear to the House what the business for tomorrow will be—but not by me.

Mr. Lawson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While I fully appreciate that the business of the House is not a point of order for you, may I ask whether, now that the Leader of the House is happily restored to health and is, happily, in the Chamber, it would be in order for him to tell the House whether there has been a change of business for next Monday? May I ask you whether it would be in order for the Leader of the House, if he felt it right, to do that now, as this matter has already appeared in the Press?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is really making a request through me.

Mr. Tebbit: Mr. Tebbit rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Tebbit—a genuine point of order?

Mr. Tebbit: Now that you have yourself announced that there will be a change of business tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would be possible for you to allow the Leader of the House to say what is to be the remainder of the business tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker: I have had no such request.

PENSIONS (INCREASE) ACT 1971 (AMENDMENT)

3.40 p.m.

Mr. John Pardoe: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971; and for connected purposes.
As the House is probably by now well aware, the Bill is about public sector pensions. It seeks to amend the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 by deleting Section 2 and so to restore the situation regarding the upgrading of public service pensions to what it was before that Act was passed.
My Bill does not seek to impose on any Government any one way of dealing with public service pensions, although I shall briefly suggest the choices before the Government. My Bill does not attack public servants. I do not believe that they are idle layabouts. There are 1 million of them—teachers, National Health Service employees, policemen and firemen and many more—all or most of them doing a very good job of work, even though we may question the value of some of the work done by the bureaucrats. Not all of them are well paid. Some employees of the Department of Health and Social Security are paying out to many of their applicants in weekly benefits more than they are taking home in their pay packets.
The Bill is certainly not an attack on public service pensioners. My object in bringing it forward is to bring a little reason and a sense of fair play to bear upon public service pensions.
It is not my intention to blame any one Government or party for the 1971 Act. It was Parliament that made a mistake in 1971, if mistake there was, and I accept my share of responsibility for that. No one foresaw in 1971 that a time would come when prices would rise faster than incomes. It is that fact that has caused the problem and resulted in the need for my Bill.
Before the 1971 Act the situation was that the Government reviewed public service pensions as and when they saw fit. An Act of Parliament was required each time and that meant that Parliament could debate, discuss and decide the issue.

The 1971 Act provided for a two-yearly review of official pensions—
against any rise there may have been in the cost of living during the review period".
That provision was amended almost immediately afterwards by Section 25 of the Superannuation Act 1972, which provided for an annual review of official pensions.
The result of those two Acts is that official pensions are increased each year on 1st December by an amount equal to the rise in the Index of Retail Prices during the previous 12 months. That is sometimes called indexation because it links pensions to that index. I support the principle of indexation, but it cannot be done for one part of the economy or one section of the community alone, because that leads to distortions in the economy and injustice between one group and another.
This is neither the time nor the place to argue the principle of indexation. I and my Liberal colleagues have for some time been committed to full-scale monetary correction as advocated by the Nobel economics laureate Professor Milton Friedman. Before his time it was advocated by Lord Keynes. To link one section of pensions only, or even pensions and wages, with the index—as was done with the threshold agreement—without linking all other financial contracts with the index is economic lunacy. It is a question of all or nothing with indexation; we cannot go half way.
In the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971, the Government indexed only public service pensions. They hoped—a perfectly reasonable hope at the time—that they would thereby set an example to the private sector. At first, some of the best firms in the private sector took up that challenge and followed the Government's example. But where is the money to come from?
All pension schemes in the private sector are funded from a fund built up from past contributions. Those funds are inevitably eroded by inflation. The fund managers try to keep up by skilful investment, but that has proved impossible for most of them. Some firms top up the funds, but the topping up has to be done out of profits, and the profits are not there to enable that practice to continue, and it cannot be guaranteed.
In a "pay as you go" scheme, in which current pensions are paid for out of current contributions, it may be possible to cope with inflation, but it places an immense burden on the shoulders of the current generation of workers which they may not be prepared to continue to shoulder. In the public sector, the burden of indexation falls on the taxpayer. His shoulders are presumed to be infinitely broad and capable of carrying any darn fool burden anyone likes to lay on them.
What are the results of the 1971 Act? First, public service pensioners have done very much better than have private sector pensioners. That, inevitably, will encourage people to go into the public sector as opposed to the wealth-creating private sector. Over a period that will have disastrous results on the balance between public and private sectors in a mixed economy.
The second result is that many public service pensioners who retired in 1973 now have higher pensions than do people doing the same job in the public sector who retire now. Because of compound percentages, the increase in public service pensions since 1973 is 82·6 per cent. There is almost no one in the private or public sector whose pay has kept up with that.
Thirdly, public sector pensioners have beaten the pay policy. They have gone well ahead of the pay policy and I do not think that the Government will argue that that is a good thing.
So indexation is unfair between the public and private sector pensioners, unfair between public sector pensioners and the whole working population, and unfair between public sector pensioners and public sector employees.
What should the Government do? They might accept the advice of the TUC and Professor Michael Fogarty and index-link all pensions, private and public, but that can be done only by a topping up from the taxpayer. There is no other source for the funds. The taxpayer will, therefore, be chary of that advice.
Secondly, we could go back to a regular review by Parliament.
The third course—the one I advocate—is for the Government to apply the pay policy to pensioners in both public and private sectors. No one who has ceased to work should be allowed to get an increase in his income which is larger than he would have received had he stayed at work. What the unions asked for in 1971 was said by the Government to be too expensive. The unions asked that pensions and pay should be tied together. My Bill leaves the Government free to do that or to apply the pay policy to pensions. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Pardoe, Mr. J. Grimond, Mr. Cyril Smith, Mr. Emlyn Hooson, Mr. Stephen Ross, Mr. David Penhaligon, Mr. Richard Wainwright and Mr. Geraint Howells.

PENSIONS (INCREASE) ACT 1971 (AMENDMENT)

Mr. John Pardoe accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971; and for connected purposes: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 242.]

Orders of the Day — RETIREMENT OF TEACHERS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Order for Committee read.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to raise this point of order so early in the debate, but perhaps you might like to take a little time to consider it.
There are to be before the House three Scottish Bills, but I am particularly concerned about the last of them, the Licensing (Scotland) Bill, which received its Third Reading in another place only last night. Since the Government amendments are starred, I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether all those starred amendments will be selected by you for debate today.
Because the Bill came from the other place only last night, it must be emphasised that, although no doubt the Government have had the opportunity of departmental advice to help them, Back Benchers on the other hand are put in great difficulties in examining amendments made in the other place. Many hon. Members, including myself, have been in Committee all morning, and I wonder whether you will be prepared to accept manuscript amendments from Back Benchers if you decide that the business can go ahead.
Finally, I wish to emphasise that the Licensing (Scotland) Bill is an important matter, not a party political dispute, and causes deep feelings among many hon. Members across the party boundaries in this House. The measure has evoked great interest in Scotland and is being followed closely there. The organisations affected by its provisions in Scotland have experienced difficulties in making representations to Members of Parliament because the deliberations in the other place were completed only last night. Therefore, those concerned have not had the opportunity to see what Government amendments have been tabled and have been unable to make the appropriate representations.
Ideally, Mr. Speaker, I believe that because of the importance of the Bill and

because the Government have brought the measure back to this House at such short notice, the measure should be put back for consideration at a later date.

Mr. Hector Monro: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is intolerable that on the Licensing (Scotland) Bill we should have before us 53 Lords amendments—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to submit a point of order to me, I hope that he will not argue the case which no doubt he will have an opportunity to deploy later.

Mr. Monro: I would not dream of arguing the case, Mr. Speaker. I know that you always seek to protect the interests of Back Benchers. My point of order relates to the fact that 53 Lords amendments are now before us and that many of them are starred. This makes life intolerable for hon. Members who wish to carry out their legislative work efficiently—and this especially applies to Back Benchers. The Government should give some explanation of their handling of these matters and say how they expect the House to deal with starred amendments which became available in the Vote Office only this morning. Surely they should have given hon. Members an opportunity to discuss those provisions with interested parties.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we shall not debate the matter now. Is the hon. Gentleman raising a completely new point which I have not heard?

Mr. Taylor: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I should be surprised if that were the case.

Mr. Taylor: Have you ever known me to be wrong, Mr. Speaker?
I wish to mention a separate point and it relates to certain Government amendments to Lords Amendment No. 46 in relation to the Licensing (Scotland) Bill. I understand that you were prepared to consider only amendments to Lords amendments which did not make a substantial change. So far as I can see, the Government, by virtue of their


Amendments Nos. 4 to 9, are virtually rewriting the clauses dealing with Sunday opening. Is that not an unusual use of Lords amendments, particularly on a controversial Bill of this nature? Is it fair that we should have before us a virtually new provision on Sunday opening so soon after the measure has left the other place? How is it possible for hon. Members to study seriously the implications of the provision?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) was quite right. He did have a completely new point of order. I apologise to him for my suspicions. It was as a result of experience—not with him, but with others.
This is not a new situation, unpleasant though it may be. I am advised that it has happened many times before that a Bill which has been discussed in the Lords the night before has then returned to this place with starred amendments. I shall accept the starred amendments. I shall be prepared to examine any manuscript amendments submitted to me.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): I did not intervene earlier, Mr. Speaker, on the point of order because these matters are for you, and not for me, but the question of taking the Bill today was discussed through the usual channels. No amendments were made to the Bill yesterday on Third Reading in the other place. I appreciate that this is not the most convenient way of proceeding, and I hope that when we come to the controversial amendments—and there are not many—I shall be able to give an explanation that will help the House to understand what they mean.

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr. BRYANT GODMAN IRVINE in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Clause 1

AGE OF RETIREMENT OF TEACHERS

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 8, leave out
'or by the managers of a grant-aided school'.
This might appear a somewhat unnecessary amendment, but we hope that it will elicit information from the Government and certainly some explanation of the

speeches made by the Secretary of State and his colleagues on Second Reading. We wish to establish from the Government how many teachers are involved in grant-aided schools. The numbers were the basis of considerable controversy on Second Reading, and the Secretary of State will appreciate that he has a great deal of explaining to do.
If we examine the Official Report for 25th October we shall see that the Secretary of State used as his justification for the Bill the fact that unemployed teachers would be given jobs. We then asked him to give some idea of the numbers involved and he said:
… I believe that on 1st January about 400 teachers in Scottish schools will be affected by the Bill in one way or another. That is the extent by which, by making room in schools, we could be making jobs available for newly qualified teachers who at present find it difficult to obtain jobs."—[Official Report, 25th October 1976; Vol. 918, c. 52.]
That was a clear statement, and we asked for details. We were told that because the September 1976 survey was not available details of numbers in grant-aided schools and other schools could not be given. Therefore, I was astonished to hear from Mr. Docherty, the respected General Secretary of the Scottish Secondary Schoolmasters' Association, that the day after that debate he received a letter from the Scottish Education Department, and with it a table headed
Number of teachers over age 65 in service as at September 1976.
The reference on that statement gave the impression that this was the up-to-date figure for September 1976. Figures included in that table caused great concern and astonishment to hon. Members who thought that the Bill was aimed at justifying the saving of teacher jobs because we discovered that those teachers in full-time employment, according to the table, totalled only 183.
4.0 p.m.
I notice, as I did on Second Reading, that when the Opposition mention something that is particularly embarrassing, the Secretary of State engages in a loud personal conversation. That is a good guide that we have hit on something which the Government have bungled.
The figure is significant because the other teachers concerned—temporary, part-time or occasional—are on such short-term contracts that their services


can be dispensed with irrespective of the Bill. Of the total number of teachers, 117 are in primary schools, about 45 in secondary schools and probably, although we do not know, a considerable proportion of the 45 will be teachers of subjects such as maths where there is a shortage. The Bill will not have the effect of creating more jobs.
In the debate on 25th October the Secretary of State said that he could not give any details but in a letter to the Scottish Secondary Schoolmasters Association he gave a full and detailed statement. Has there been a mistake in the make-up of the figures? Did the Scottish Office make that mistake by referring to September 1976 when it meant September 1975? Even that would not answer the situation because in a statement in another place Lord Kirkhill said that the figure for September 1975 was about 300.

Mr. Millan: This has nothing to do with the amendment. If the hon. Gentleman raises the matter on the Question That the clause stand part of the Bill, I shall be happy to deal with it. The amendment is a narrow one.

Mr. Taylor: We are dealing with the numbers of teachers in grant-aided schools. Unless the Secretary of State can give us an explanation on the amendment it will be difficult for us to proceed. It is outrageous for the Government to have misled the House and to ask us to approve the inclusion of grant-aided schools without any indication of the numbers involved. It is not for the Secretary of State to give the House instructions on order. He has a bit of a cheek if he says that there will be an explanation forthcoming later when the House has already been misled. Either Mr. Docherty was misled or we were misled.
I thought it might have been a mistake involving the year and Mr. Docherty, in a frantic telephone conversation this morning, was told that there had been a mistake. He was told that the statement did not mean what it said and that the figures came from the year before. If that is the case, why did Lord Kirkhill say that the 1975 figure was about 300? The Secretary of State has a lot of explaining to do.
Our concern is for the numbers involved. Surely the Secretary of State can give us some indication of the numbers. The information given to Mr. Docherty showed that the reason for the new legislation is to deal with one permanent primary school teacher, no secondary school teachers and 1·5 special teachers in grant-aided schools. A total of seven part-timers are employed in grant-aided schools but they can be dismissed under existing legislation.
In which school does the one primary schoolteacher work? Is it a school where it might be difficult to recruit someone else and is the teacher male or female? The Government are taking up the valuable time of the House to deal with a situation which, according to the statement given to Mr. Docherty but not to us, concerns one full-time permanent teacher and 1·5 special teachers in grant-aided schools. How is it possible to have 1·5 permanent teachers? Where are they and will the Bill be of real help to them? As I said on Second Reading, I have a feeling that the Bill, instead of saving teachers' jobs, is just a cosmetic to cover other Government embarrassments over teacher unemployment and industrial policy.
I declare an interest because my 4½-year-old son has just started at a grant-aided school in Glasgow. Is it right for a Government which intends to phase out grants to grant-aided schools to write into permanent legislation a restriction on the freedom of action of schools which will shortly receive no grants at all?
The issue is important though small and beyond it there is the whole credibility of the Secretary of State who specifically told the House that the September 1976 figures were not available. He told us that 400 teaching jobs would be made available. He should explain precisely how, if one dismisses 50 part-time teachers, 50 new jobs are created. The Secretary of State was misleading the House.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Spring-burn (Mr. Buchanan) recently asked how many teachers over 65 years of age are in temporary, part-time or occasional posts and therefore not directly affected by the Bill and how many are employed


in one-teacher or two-teacher schools. He was told:
The estimate of 400 to which my right hon. Friend referred on 25th October—cannot be broken down into the categories requested." —[Official Report, 2nd November 1976, Vol. 918, c. 504.]
If that is so, how was it possible for the categories to be broken down to Mr. Docherty the day after the debate? There is something strange going on. I feel that it is an attempt by the Government to give the impression that the Bill will achieve more than it will.
I can see no point in writing in a specific provision about grant-aided schools when, as far as I can see, no secondary teachers are involved and only one primary teacher is involved, and when the grants for the grant-aided schools are being phased out because of the Government's scandalous vendetta against those schools.

Mrs. Margaret Bain: The Scottish National Party's attitude to the grant-aided schools is already clear, but the principle behind the debate is very important. Scottish teachers feel an increasing lack of confidence in the Scottish Office as it seems to be unable to produce statistics when asked for them in the House. On Second Reading several of us, from different parties, asked for the numbers affected by the Bill. It is extremely disappointing that only research by organisations outwith the House has provided the figures on which we have come to depend.
It appears that there are 416 teachers over the age of 65, but 145 are part-time according to the Scottish Education Department statistics kindly provided by the SSTA. Incidentally, I point out to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) that that is the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association and not the Schoolmasters' Association. There is quite a difference. Part-time teachers in Scotland have already suffered the indignity of being asked to leave during the present crisis, many of them having already given years of inestimable service to the local community. We all know that 145 part-time jobs do not make 145 full-time jobs. How many jobs does the Secretary of State estimate would become available if the 145 part-time teachers were replaced by the new

teacher who could not find employment?
Is the figure of 184 full-time permanent teachers the one with which the Bill deals, or is it 400? What exactly is the figure the Scottish Office has in mind? Most hon. Members have rather confused attitudes towards the Bill because they are unsure about the number of jobs available. Only a categorical assurance that the Secretary of State knows the numbers involved will ensure that the Bill is given its Third Reading.

Mr. James Dempsey: Over the weekend I was interviewed by a representative of Mr. Docherty's association, the SSTA, who told me that one of the main reasons for the Bill was to find employment for newly qualified teachers. We have heard that 400 teachers could be found employment if we passed the Bill. I have heard many figures bandied about—400, 300 and now 180. I was told at the weekend that if we took account of those who could have their services terminated by the ordinary statutory rights of local education authorities and those over age but teaching subjects for which there is a shortage of teachers—for example, engineering, science and maths—we should find that not more than 60 teachers would be affected by the Bill. A wide variety of figures are being trotted around. It would be in the interests of us all to have something more definite.
4.15 p.m.
I have a great respect for many of the teachers with whom we are dealing. Whatever we decide today, we should all express our gratitude to those men and women who have devoted their time to helping us, especially during periods of serious teacher shortage. The officer in charge of Lanarkshire was out night after night knocking on doors to encourage teachers to help us out during the days of grave shortage. We should record our appreciation to them for their loyal service during those difficult times.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) said that the Secretary of State had stated that he could not break down the figure of 400. I wonder why not. I could have understood it before the reorganisation of local government, when we had about 30 local education authorities. It would then


have been quite a problem preparing reports showing the number of teachers over 65, the subjects they taught and those who would automatically be asked to retire when the Bill became law. But today we have only 12 education authorities and it should not be so difficult. Has any effort been made by my right hon. Friend's Department to find out from the 12 regional authorities the numbers of teachers over 65 and the subjects they are teaching? Since my meeting with the SSTA representative, I am convinced that steps should be taken to place before the House clear details of the number of teachers affected.

Mr. Monro: I am glad to join the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) in his tribute to the older teachers who helped out in Scottish education for such a long time when we were short of teachers. Their help was nowhere more important than in the hon. Gentleman's area, then Lanarkshire but now Strathclyde.
I want to add my strong criticism of the handling of this legislation by the Scottish Office. The Under-Secretary talks about raising standards. He hopes for better standards, but, as the draft of the letter on the subject is so woefully inadequate in terms of literacy and numeracy, he has a long way to go.
Our first demand must be for a clear statement on what went wrong with the computer in the Scottish Office which resulted in the House and no doubt Ministers themselves being completely misled. I cannot imagine that they would have introduced the Bill if they had known what they were talking about. When we have a great economic crisis and many other problems to deal with, it is difficult to justify taking up the time of the House with a Bill that apparently will retire compulsorily only about 180 teachers. Some of those teachers are specialists in mathematics and science whose departure can be ill afforded, bearing in mind that so many of the teachers without posts are not qualified in mathematics and science. I shall, of course, be relating this situation particularly to the grant-aided schools, where the situation is even more incredible.
The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) said that we all know

the policy of the SNP in relation to the grant aided schools. But she did not go on, for the benefit of the House and the world at large, to say that the SNP had set out hell-bent to abolish them, as have the present Socialist Government. We on the Conservative Benches realise the value and importance of the grant-aided schools and the grant-aided system in Scotland, as well as the right of managers to appoint or retire their teachers as they and the teaching association feel correct.
The SSTA, so ably led by Mr. Docherty, has brought to the notice of the House the apparently incompatible terms of the letter sent by the Scottish Education Department to Mr. Docherty. It grieves me to know that that splendid Department has fallen so rapidly on to the rocks under the guidance of the Minister. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) chortles away but he does not know that at one time the SED was operating extremely effectively. What is of concern is that here we have a letter written by the Department and compounded by Lord Kirkhill in another place. The present disorganisation in the Department is incomprehensible. The Minister has a great deal to explain away, such as the figures and the drafting of the letter in relation to the numbers of teachers available in schools, particularly those available to teach in grant-aided schools who would be compulsorily retired under the Bill.
It seems surprising that the Minister should include a clause apparently affecting one primary school teacher in Scotland. Does he really think that it is good value for money or a proper use of the Government's time? Surely they could be doing better things than legislating to retire one teacher. Mr. Malloch must be spinning like a top at the thought. The Minister has a great deal of explaining to do before the House can accept that what he is proposing is more than a charade of practical legislation about Scottish education.
We on the Conservative Benches are particularly anxious about the numbers encouraged into colleges of education by the Minister in September last year when he had all the facts before him. We are still awaiting answers to our questions about why he did it. The hon. Gentleman still does not know and is not


prepared to answer those questions. The House is eagerly awaiting answers. Will the hon. Gentleman try to reconcile the inconsistencies in the statistical information over the past two months about teacher supply and teacher retirement, because the House is so far confounded by his efforts?

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: The House has heard from several speakers how hopelessly irrelevant the Bill is to the educational needs of Scotland. I do not wish to go over the general argument. The amendment specifically relates to grant-aided schools and I would draw attention to something of significant importance. We have heard a number of references about the hopelessness of the information made available to the House, particularly during the Second Reading debate.
I want to make a specific reference to a positive mis-statement made by the Minister in respect of education in Scotland during the Second Reading debate. It was a positive misleading of the House and unless the hon. Gentleman corrects it, or withdraws it, it could do considerable harm to one particular individual in Scotland.
During Second Reading I raised the case of Dundee High School which is a grant-aided and co-educational school. I referred to the problem which that school had raised with the Scottish Education Department, namely, that its present rector is due to become 65 this month. The school raised this matter some months ago before the Bill had even been contemplated. The school has invited the rector to remain after his 65th birthday—until June of next year—in order that he can supervise the internal reorganisation of the school. As a result of this Bill the rector would be obliged to retire on 1st January next year with a maximum extension of three months—a period which is less than that required by his school in the interests of the school and the pupils.
I raised this matter with the Minister and pleaded with him to reconsider it because of the harmful effect that the Government's policy would have with regard to this particular school. The answer that I got from the Minister was not only disappointing but turned out to be totally inaccurate and misleading. In the Official Report of Monday 25th

October, during Second Reading the Minister referred to my comments and said:
The hon. Member for Edinburgh Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) referred to the decision about the rector of Dundee High School.
The Minister then went on to say:
That situation has nothing to do with the Bill. The situation of a rector, which is a promoted post was decided in 1969 when the teaching profession, unions and local authorities were unanimous in the view that a promoted teacher had to retire at 65."—[Official Report, 25th October, 1976; Vol. 918, c. 96.]
What the Minister was saying, quite unambiguously and unequivocally was that the position of the rector of Dundee High School was in no way affected by the Bill or prejudiced by it because the situation had already been resolved seven years ago.
I must inform the Minister that he clearly had not read his own legislation when he made that statement. There is a substantial difference in the present situation, as proposed in the Bill, compared with the situation under the 1969 Education (Scotland) Act. If the Minister will refer—perhaps for the first time—to the 1969 Act he will see that Section 16(1) states quite specifically:
Except where his employer otherwise determines, every teacher … shall retire"—
at a certain age, and in the case of promoted posts at the age of 65.
In other words, not that he must retire at 65 irrespective of whether his employers determined otherwise. It was on that basis, under the provisions of the 1969 Act, that Dundee High School made its invitation to the rector to continue and he agreed to do so until June of next year in order to supervise the reorganisation of that grant-aided school.
In case there is any doubt about this matter, or that the school might have been confused, I asked the school after the Minister made his reply last Monday and the letter I have received states:
The employer in this case is the Board of Governors or Managers of the School and they determined, prior to the Retirement of Teachers (Scotland) Bill that the Rector should continue in his post until the end of the present session, i.e. the end of June 1977. Before coming to this decision reference was made to the Scottish Education Department
—the Minister's own Department—
in Edinburgh, who referred us to Section 16 of the 1969 Act and confirmed that what we intended was perfectly in order.

Mr. Monro: That is monstrous.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Rifkind: I look forward to the Minister's reply. Last Monday he said categorically that this Bill made not the slightest difference to the position of the rector of Dundee High School. It is clear from the Bill, but we have also a statement from the SED to the high school, that prior to the publication of the Bill the rector would have been able to continue as the school hoped. As a result of the Bill, that will no longer be possible.
The Minister did not answer that question last Monday. He misled the House, albeit innocently. I hope therefore that he will not only make clear the legal position but also concede that the position of the rector will be severely prejudiced by the Bill in its present form. I hope that he will be man enough to accept now that some flexibility is required, that the present position is undesirable and that the legislation should be amended in terms of this amendment and by means of other amendments which will extend the period for people in promoted posts until after the age of 65.
It is unusual and unfortunate when the House is misled in this way. I hope that the Minister will now have the grace to agree that he unwittingly misled the House and to concede this point in the interests of justice.

Mr. William Small: I wonder who is misleading whom. I respect the intellectual fidelity of hon. Members, but the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) said that this matter concerned the future of the grant-aided schools. I thing that he had better read the record. I am a Bedouin who believes in Greek tragedy, and I see that as a classic case of misleading the House.
Then there is the numbers game, the throwing of the legal dice to decide whether an area will get a grant-aided school and therefore—so Opposition Members claim—children the opportunity of a better education. I hope that the Minister will resist the amendment. This tendency to play the numbers game is not consonant with the principle of the amendment.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): The amendment is a very narrow one and has nothing to do with much of the debate that we have heard so far. I hope that hon. Members will take the advice of the Secretary of State, who told the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) when he went into the numbers game that if a debate on the Question That the clause stand part of the Bill were allowed, my right hon. Friend would clear up the matter of one group of figures against another.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: We were not questioning figures. We asked a simple question. The Minister said on 25th that figures were not available. But Mr. Docherty got a table headed "September 1976". Therefore, either Mr. Docherty was misled or the House was misled. It must be one or the other. The Minister could at least answer that point of principle, quite apart from the detailed explanation. That is a straight question requiring a straight answer—"Yes" or "No".

Mr. McElhone: Could I prevail on the hon. Member to take the advice of my right hon. Friend? My right hon. Friend will certainly convey to the House in his answer enough information to clear up the doubts in the hon. Member's mind and in the minds of any other hon. Members. I ask him to consider that proposition.
I stand by what I said at the beginning, that this is a very narrow amendment. I am bound to deal with the amendment. I hope that I shall not be taken to be impudent about the conduct of the Chair if I also say that the comments by the hon. Member for Edinburgh Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) had nothing to do with the amendment. However, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall try to answer his questions and his accusation that I misled the House.
The purpose of the amendment is to remove from the application of the proposed new Section 16 any teacher employed by managers of a grant-aided school which is a grant-aided secondary school or a grant-aided residential special school. I regret to say that the amendment is not acceptable to the Government. The present Section 16 of the


Education (Scotland) Act 1969 applies both to teachers employed by the managers of a grant-aided school and to those employed by an education authority and requires them to retire from a promoted post at the age of 65 and from any other post at the age of 70, unless the employers otherwise determine.
This section will be replaced from the date of commencement of the Bill by the proposed new Section 16. If the new section does not apply to teachers employed by the managers of grant-aided schools, there will be no statutory provisions governing the retiring age of teachers employed by such managers. As long as the managers of such schools receive public money in the form of grant aid, the conditions of service of teachers in them should not differ substantially from those which apply to teachers in education authority schools.
The amendment is also defective, because it does not remove the reference to managers of grant-aided schools in line 19 on page 1. I would ask the Committee to resist the amendment.
Perhaps I might now try to answer the questions raised by the hon. Member for Pentlands. The substance of our debates was the whole question of promoted and non-promoted teachers. It was a unanimous decision, which had the acceptance of the teaching unions, that promoted teachers should retire at 65 in order to open up the promotional stream. That was accepted by everyone, with no furore. The hon. Member for Pentlands wrote to me about the rector of Dundee High School and I replied to him in the letter to which he referred.
When I referred to the debate, it was in the context of the general provision, which we had agreed in 1969, that teachers in promoted posts should retire at 65 anyway. The Bill would allow three months' discretion. We believe that the correct way of tackling this problem—

Mr. Rifkind: The Minister refers to the letter that he wrote to me. I never mentioned it, because it contained nothing of substance. I was referring to the Minister's statement in the House last Monday. I raised the matter with him, as he remembers. I must repeat the words that he used:

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) referred to the decision about the rector of Dundee High School. That situation has nothing to do with the Bill."—[Official Report, 25th October 1976: Vol. 918, c. 96.]
That is what the Minister said, but any examination of the Bill reveals that it has an enormous amount to do with the Bill. But for the Bill, the rector could continue in office as the school, the parents and everyone else wish until June next year. As a result of the Bill he will be able to remain there only for three months after 1st January. That is the consequence of this Bill and of nothing else. Would the Minister concede that?

Mr. McElhone: We do not want to split hairs or spend an inordinate time on this amendment, because in this context it is in a sense out of order. On Second Reading, we discussed the contents of the letter in which I replied to the hon. Member, referring to the rector. I was saying at that time that the situation in Dundee was such that surely a replacement could be found from among all the teachers in the Tayside region who could fill this position. I was saying that surely this man was not irreplaceable. The hon. Gentleman will remember that I made that point and said that the whole point of retiring from promoted posts at 65 was to open the possibility of promotion to those posts. That was how I described it in the context of the debate. If I misled the hon. Gentleman, I apologise, but he knows that was not my intention.

Mr. Rifkind: Mr. Rifkind indicated assent.

Mr. McElhone: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman, who is gracious at times, accepts that. The argument is still the same.
No person is so irreplaceable that a teacher on Tayside could not be found to do the same job as the rector of Dundee. I have great faith in the quality of teachers in Scotland. To settle the argument, if I gave a different impression, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
In the context of the debate we were talking about promoted posts at 65 and the need to open promotion opportunities for teachers in non-promoted posts. I was arguing on the principle that no one is irreplaceable—certainly not headmasters of schools, be they grant-aided or ordinary comprehensive secondary


schools. I hope that will be accepted by the hon. Member for Pentlands. We must resist the amendment.

Mr. Rifkind: I accept that the Minister did not deliberately intend to mislead the House, but the fact remains that he did. I am happy that he has at last conceded that point, albeit reluctantly.
The Minister may be right to say that it is generally accepted that persons in promoted posts should retire at the age of 65 with various extensions for limited periods if the school wishes. But that is not the issue. In the instance to which I drew his attention the question was whether there should be certain flexibility to allow the rector to continue not indefinitely, but for another eight or nine weeks because he was supervising the overall internal reorganisation of the school. In the view of the governors, that will take several months to complete. If the rector who initiated that reorganisation has to leave before it is completed, I suggest that a completely new teacher, who may be a very good rector, cannot reasonably be expected to take over such a complex and substantial reorganisation.

Mr. McElhone: Deputy?

Mr. Rifkind: The Minister mutters "Deputy". We do not know whether the deputy will become the rector. The top person in the school is the rector.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Would it not be possible for the school in question to allow the present rector to complete his job while holding the post as a non-promoted teacher?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman clearly demonstrates the nonsense involved by suggesting that, instead of the Government writing inflexibility into the Bill so that common sense can coincide with its terms, we should have a rigid Bill, but re-employ the rector as an ordinary teacher for a couple of months to complete the reorganisation.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is obviously having a bit of fun. There is flexibility in the Bill to allow the rector to stay on if he is engaged in reorganising the school. But he could do that without being rector. On the other hand, it shows a damaging view of the way in which the affairs of

that school are run that one man should be totally responsible for everything that happens and, if he goes, there is utter chaos and collapse.

Mr. Rifkind: Clearly the hon. Gentleman has never been responsible for or been involved in running any large organisation, be it a school, industry, a trade union or anything else. Perhaps it is just as well. Clearly if the school is going through intensive reorganisation, success or otherwise will depend on the leadership provided by the person in charge of the reorganisation. To withdraw the rector, not by accident but by design, just before the reorganisation is complete is bound to increase the problems.
The Bill in its present form is foolishly rigid. It is not meant to re-enact common sense. It is simply concerned with choosing an unnecessary formula which will not have any substantial effect on education prospects in Scotland. I hope that the Minister realises that he is asking the Committee to approve a rigid statute that does not relate to standards of common sense. That is not what legislation is for.
The Bill has already resulted in considerable resentment. This type of approach is certain to increase the resentment already felt by many in the teaching profession. In at least one instance it will lead to serious problems in the reorganisation of an important school.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Minister has given a most disgraceful reply from the Dispatch Box. It was totally inadequate in meeting the arguments which have been put forward by the Opposition. If the Minister's arguments are to be so lacking in reason and fact on other amendments, we are in for a long, hard night's work. I hope that he will continue better than he started, because he has not given us any confidence so far.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) put forward an unequivocal argument when she referred to grant-aided schools. It is interesting to have the views of the Scottish National Party repeated.
One point really annoyed me in the Minister's reply. Having had to sit opposite the Minister on another Bill earlier


in this Session, I know that, whenever he is lacking in argument, he tries to put up a smoke screen of other reasons which have no relation to the amendment under discussion. That is what the hon. Gentleman did this afternoon in lecturing the Committee on procedure in the presence of the Chairman. We shall listen to the Chairman regarding procedure, but not the hon. Gentleman.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) made it clear that we cannot proceed to further debates on this clause without knowing the basis of fact on which it is formed. It is all very well for the Secretary of State to intervene and to say that he will give us the figures on the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill. But, by the time we reach that stage, we shall have finished with this amendment. We want to know what is involved now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart was entirely right to refer to the figures which have been given in earlier debates and to the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association and to ask which were right. What confidence can we have in any figures put forward by the Government when so many different figures have been bandied about? The Secretary of State could have helped the Committee if he had been prepared to give this information at an earlier stage. It is difficult to form a proper opinion when the Government are not prepared to give the necessary information to enable us to continue.
The Minister has not dealt with the one basic question put to him by my hon. Friend. We have been put in a difficulty, because of the Secretary of State's intransigence, in coming to a proper decision on the amendment. I put that to one side. The Minister has completely failed to answer the question: how many teachers are involved? The Minister should have been prepared to answer that question. My hon. Friend put forward the figures which he thought were involved: one full-time teacher in primary schools, none in secondary schools, and 1·5, whatever that may mean, in special schools. We want to know whether the Minister will give us an answer on that point and tell us how many are involved in relation to the amendment.
The Minister appeared to be so worked up about procedure that he was not prepared to give us the information. This makes me very nervous as to what may happen when we come to the motion That the Clause stand part of the Bill. If the Minister cannot give us the information on this one small point, what confidence can we have that the Government will be any more forthcoming or accurate later? For that reason, if for no other, I am particularly disappointed with the Minister's argument.
With regard to the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), this again focuses the inadequacy of the Minister's reply. The Minister makes little of the one person concerned in relation to Dundee High School. He seems to think that because there is only one person concerned, it is a special case and ought not to cause any difficulty. But that argument is equally applicable to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart. If only one primary schoolteacher and 1·5 special schoolteachers are involved, that is not very important either. Therefore, if the Minister tries to belittle the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Pentlands, he is in effect giving strength to the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart. If this is of so little importance, why does the Minister not accept our amendment? The Minister has shown himself to be thoroughly stubborn. He has shown that the Bill is really of little importance, because so few people are involved.
Concerning the main burden of the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Pentlands as to the rector of Dundee High School, the Minister is saying that because the Government have a Bill with blanket provision for a particular purpose covering all teachers, he is completely unprepared to consider a special situation in a particular school, which our amendment would help cover. That is what makes us on the Conservative side very critical of the whole approach of the Government to education in Scotland at the present time.
The Government are simply not prepared to deal with the special needs of particular groups in particular schools. If I were involved in teaching in Scotland I should be horrified at the insensitivity


of the Minister to the particular problem of Dundee High School. The view put forward by the managers is a thoroughly reasonable one. There is a major reorganisation taking place and they have asked for special conditions in regard to the rector. This is not for another year or two but just for a matter of weeks, so that they can continue to the end of the 1976–77 school session and carry through to its conclusion the reorganisation that is taking place.
By trying to apply his blanket solution to a particular case, the Minister has not shown himself to be worthy of his responsibilities of looking after education in Scotland at the present time. He is quite insensitive to the needs of education in Scotland.
In listening to the debate I could not help reflecting on the reluctance of the Minister and of the Secretary of State to give to the House the statistics which would help it to come to a better conclusion, knowing that there is confusion and conflict about the figures. One wonders—this point was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries

(Mr. Monro)—what has happened to the numeracy of the Scottish Education Department. The Prime Minister has been urging a return to better educational standards. The Scottish Education Department, and the Minister responsible for that Department, would do well to try to improve their standards and to set an example themselves. In failing to put right the record in regard to numbers they are failing the House. They are not enabling the House to deal properly with these amendments.

I appreciate that the amendment does not affect many people but, given the inadequacy of the Government's reply, their total unwillingness and failure to provide the information which would help the House, and the insensitivity of the Minister towards these special cases, I have no hesitation in advising my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the amendment and to vote against the Government.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 138, Noes 163.

Division No. 369.]
AYES
[4.55 p.m.


Arnold, Tom
Fry, Peter
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Mawby, Ray


Awdry, Daniel
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Baker, Kenneth
Goodhew, Victor
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Banks, Robert
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Bell, Ronald
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mills, Peter


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Benyon, W.
Gray, Hamish
Moate, Roger


Berry, Hon Anthony
Grieve, Percy
Monro, Hector


Biggs-Davison, John
Grist, Ian
Montgomery, Fergus


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hall, Sir John
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hannam, John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Brittan, Leon
Havers, Sir Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hawkins, Paul
Neubert, Michael


Brotherton, Michael
Hayhoe, Barney
Newton, Tony


Bryan, Sir Paul
Heseltine, Michael
Noll, John


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hicks, Robert
Onslow, Cranley


Buck, Antony
Higgins, Terence L.
Page, John (Harrow West)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Carlisle, Mark
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Parkinson, Cecil


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Percival, Ian


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Prior, Rt Hon James


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Clegg, Walter
Jopling, Michael
Raison, Timothy


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rathbone, Tim


Cope, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cordle, John H.
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Corrie, John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Knight, Mrs Jill
Ridsdale, Julian


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knox, David
Rifkind, Malcolm


Drayson, Burnaby
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Durant, Tony
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sainsbury, Tim


Dykes, Hugh
Luce, Richard
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Farr, John
Macfarlane, Nell
Shepherd, Colin


Fisher, Sir Nigel
MacGregor, John
Shersby, Michael


Fookes, Miss Janet
Madel, David
Silvester, Fred


Forman, Nigel
Marten, Neil
Sims, Roger


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Mates, Michael
Sinclair, Sir George


Fox, Marcus
Mather, Carol
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)




Sproat, Iain
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Stradling Thomas, J.
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Wall, Patrick



Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Walters, Dennis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Tebbit, Norman
Wiggin, Jerry
Mr. Spencer Le Marehant and


Townsend, Cyril D.
Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Michael Roberts.


Viggers, Peter






NOES


Abse, Leo
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Prescott, John


Anderson, Donald
Hatton, Frank
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Archer, Peter
Henderson, Douglas
Reid, George


Armstrong, Ernest
Hooson, Emlyn
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Roper, John


Atkinson, Norman
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Rose, Paul B.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Hunter, Adam
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Rowlands, Ted


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Sandelson, Neville


Bates, Alf
Janner, Greville
Sedgemore, Brian


Beith. A. J.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Selby, Harry


Bishop, E. S.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
John, Brynmor
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Silverman, Julius


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Skinner, Dennis


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Small, William


Buchan, Norman
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Campbell, Ian
Judd, Frank
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Canavan, Dennis
Kaufman, Gerald
Spriggs, Leslie


Cant, R. B.
Kelley, Richard
Stallard, A. W.


Carmichael, Nell
Kerr, Russell
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Cartwright, John
Lambie, David
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Cocks, Rt Han Michael
Lamond, James
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Coleman, Donald
Leadbitter, Ted
Sloddart, David


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Strang, Gavin


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lipton, Marcus
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Lomas, Kenneth
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Crawford, Douglas
McCartney, Hugh
Thompson, George


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
MacCormick, Iain
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Deakins, Eric
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Tierney, Sydney


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
McElhone, Frank
Tomney, Frank


Dempsey, James
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Urwin, T. W.


Doig, Peter
Mackintosh, John P.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dormand, J. D.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McNamara, Kevin
Ward, Michael


Eadie, Alex
Madden, Max
Walkins, David


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Watt, Hamish


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Welsh, Andrew


English, Michael
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
White, James (Pollock)


Evans, John (Newton)
Mendelson, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Faulds, Andrew
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wigley, Dafydd


Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Molloy, William
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Ford, Ben
Moonman, Eric
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Forrester, John
Murray. Rt Hon Ronald King
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Newens, Stanley
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Orbach, Maurice
Woodall, Alec


Gilbert, Dr John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Woof, Robert


Ginsburg, David
Ovenden, John
Wriggles worth, Ian


Golding, John
Palmer, Arthur



Gourlay, Harry
Pardoe, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Park, George
Mr. James Hamilton and


Hardy, Peter
Parker, John
Mr. Ted. Graham.


Harper, Joseph
Penhaligon, David



Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Phipps, Dr Colin

Question accordingly negatived.

5 p.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 11, leave out paragraph (a) and (b) and insert—

'(a) on the date on which he attains the awe of 65, or
(b) in the case of a teacher who has attained the age of 65 before the commencement of this Act, on the date of such commencement.'

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this

amendment we may take the following amendments:

No. 2, in line 12, leave out '1st January 1977' and insert '1st March 1977'.

No. 3, in line 15, leave out '1st January 1977' and insert '31st December 1976'.

No. 4, in line 15, leave out '1st January 1977' and insert '1st March 1977'.

No. 9, in Clause 2, page 2, line 14, leave out '1st January 1977' and insert '1st March 1977'.

No. 10, in page 2, line 14, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
'This Act shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may appoint by an order made by statutory instrument.'

Mr. Taylor: I am sorry that it falls to me to move this amendment. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) is indisposed.
It is depressing to move an amendment with a good case bearing in mind that in the last Division the Government were again supported by the votes of Scottish National Party Members. It is disappointing that, despite our good argument, once again the Scottish National Party saved the Government from defeat.
This is a very good series of amendments and I can best explain it by saying that we propose three alternatives to the commencing date of 1st January 1977, The first alternative, which we think the best one is contained in Amendments Nos. 5 and 10. What, in our view, is the second best alternative is contained in Amendment No. 2, 1st March 1977. The third best of our alternatives is 31st December 1976, that proposed in Amendment No. 3.
We are trying to change the commencement date of this Bill because it is generally agreed in the teaching profession that if the Government had wanted to select any one date which was the worst possible from the point of view of the interests of the teachers, 1st January 1977 was that date.
We propose a change, namely, that the date should be fixed by order at a later stage after consultation with the teachers. It is important that there should be an opportunity and time for consultation on this issue before the Bill is implemented. The Secretary of State must accept that his assurance that consultation was undertaken on this Bill was a strange one. If any other group of work people or professionals had been treated in this scandalous way there would have been a walk out. The teachers' associations received a copy of the outline of this Bill on 6th July and were asked to make submissions on its merits by 12th July. The Bill was presented, and introduced into the House of Lords on 13th July. It is unlikely that the Bill was not printed before the official date of submissions,

and it is clear that insufficient time was given for consideration of the teachers' submissions.
The Bill should begin on a date later than 1st January in order to put the situation right. If 1st January is retained it could have a serious and adverse effect on pensions of teachers who lose their jobs. The Pensions (Increase) Act provides for pension increases to be paid to public service pensioners in accordance with increases in the cost of living. There was a 10-minute rule Bill on that issue today. The increases are at different rates, depending whether the pension starts in the six-month period from 2nd January to 1st July or 2nd July to 1st January, both dates inclusive. The formula is complicated, but basically the pensions in the latter period obtain an increase based on the cost of living for one year, while those in the former period obtain an increase based on the cost of living for only the second half of the same year. Both are paid with effect from the same date so the pension which begins on 1st January attracts a bigger increase than the one which begins on 2nd January, because the former begins in the first half of the review year, and the latter in the second half.
The Bill stipulates that those at present over 65 shall retire no later than 1st January 1977. The majority of teachers' associations and local authorities which have looked at this Bill would say that this means that the last day of service for those who do not resign but allow the Bill to operate will be 1st January 1977. Their pensions therefore will begin on 2nd January 1977 and they will lose the effect of a six-month cost of living increase because of one day's difference in the date of retirement. By having the date 1st January 1977 teachers could lose pension increase equivalent to six months rise in the cost of living. Therefore, the Government's date is most inappropriate.
The House will be aware that some time ago we passed the Employment Protection Bill which said that people were entitled to periods of notice, and it improved these rights considerably. A Person was entitled to one week's notice for each year of employment up to a maximum of 12. If we retain 1st January, this being November, it will be quite impossible to give people the proper


period of notice. We cannot give a teacher 12 weeks' notice if his or her employment is to terminate on 1st January. Therefore this date could mean that we are depriving teachers of their statutory rights to notice, which might be as much as 12 weeks. This is outrageous and quite wrong.
5.15 p.m.
Another reason for changing the date is that under the contract of service drawn up between the employing authorities and the teachers' associations, the teacher is entitled to his salary up to and including the last day of the Christmas holiday. That would mean, but for this Bill, that a teacher who terminated his employment at the end of the present term would be entitled to pay up to 7th, 8th or 9th January. That is more than a week's wages. If we keep 1st January as the date, teachers will lose that.
There is the question of precedent. What we are proposing in Amendment No. 5 is the same procedure as that in the Education (Scotland) Act 1969 which this Bill replaces. Therefore, there is a good case for saying that 1st January is the wrong date. Not only is it wrong, it is the very worst possible date. It means that teachers could lose up to six months' pension increases, it deprives them of statutory rights under the Employment Protection Act, and it deprives them of payment for about a week's holiday. In these circumstances we should change the date.
The best way to change it is not to name another date but to say that the Act should come into force on a date to be specified in a statutory instrument after consultations. An alternative suggestion is to insert the date 1st March 1977. This would enable the employing organisations to give the teachers the proper period of notice under the Employment Protection Act, and it would remove the serious injustice in relation to pensions. A third suggestion is that the date should be changed to 31st December 1976 which might go some way to dealing with the pension point. I hope the Government will accept one of these suggestions.
If we leave 1st January in the Bill we shall do a very real injustice to the teachers who may be affected by the Bill's provisions. The number affected may well be relatively small, and nothing like

the 400 mentioned by the Secretary of State in the last debate. But even if it affects only a handful, those teachers have the right to justice. If the date is not changed, there will be no justice.

Mrs. Bain: It was very obvious in the debate last Monday on Second Reading that many hon. Members on all sides of the House were very concerned about the date chosen for implementation of this Bill. The arguments against the date are quite obvious because they affect the pension rights of the teachers concerned. Whatever reservations we may have about this legislation, we must ensure that those directly affected by it will receive the protection to which they are entitled as members of a worthwhile profession.
The fact that 1st January 1977 was chosen at all indicates the lack of consultation with the teachers' organisations concerned. I hope that the Government intend to begin consultations as soon as possible with all teachers' organisations, although one particular organisation has been most vociferous in its condemnation of the date chosen.
This reflects the nature of this Bill which has been rushed through its various stages by the Government, and exemplified by the Secretary of State in his opening remarks last week. During our discussion on the Bill he said that the commencement date of 1st January 1977 was chosen as the earliest date on which the new provisions could come into force. It would therefore appear that it was chosen for the Government's administrative convenience, rather than out of genuine concern for Scottish education. I shall certainly be listening with great interest to the Secretary of State's reply.

Mr. J. M. Craigen: I hope that the Government will not stick rigidly to the date of 1st January 1977. I believe it would herald New Year bitterness, albeit for only a few people. There has been a great deal of talk about the vast differences involved for some people in the choice of date. I want the Secretary of State to give way on this point and to show some flexibility. I imagine that the best possible date would be 1st March 1977, but if that cannot be acceded to by my right hon. Friend, I hope that at least he will agree to 31st December 1976.

Mr. Monro: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) who put the argument forward so eloquently and emphatically that there is no need to go into it in any detail except to indicate my strong support. I believe that the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) was generous in suggesting that the date was chosen for administrative convenience. I believe that the Government just took any date out of a hat and included it in the Bill. The date they have chosen appears to have no relevance to the situation.
I hope that the Secretary of State will explain why he chose 1st January. He did not make it the least bit clear on Second Reading. Presumably he read the Bill in draft in the legislation committee and must have decided whether 1st January was the right date. Did he consult the teachers' associations? The SSTA has made firm representations. Personally, I have not had memoranda or representations from the EIS or the SSTA, and so I should like to know whether the Secretary of State consulted them. Did he consult the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities? Did they all agree to the date that the Government have proposed? It seems incredible that the Government should have chosen the one date that would penalise teachers, and we are therefore entitled to know why they chose it.
I believe that 1st March would be the earliest convenient date on which to implement a Bill which, as it progresses, appears to affect fewer and fewer teachers. I lend my support to the date of 1st March.

Mr. Robert Hughes: It seems that the Government cannot win in their choice of dates. The debate has centred almost exclusively on the question of teachers' pensions. Representations have been made to me which have been deeply concerned with the position of teachers who will lose pension rights under the Bill.
The idea behind the Bill, which seems to have been totally forgotten, is to require teachers at the top end of the age scale to move out of teaching in order to make room for newly-trained teachers. Therefore it seems self-evident that a balance must be struck somewhere. If the Bill is to have any effect in the current scholastic year, clearly an attempt must be made

to implement it on the earliest possible date in order to make jobs available for teachers as quickly as possible while at the same time making sure that justice is done to teachers.
The Government have gone a fair way in the Bill to give some flexibility to local authorities, either on grounds of hardship to individual teachers or on grounds of educational need in individual schools, to allow teachers to remain on where they are capable of doing the job. Whichever date had been chosen—whether 31st December 1976 or 1st February 1977—the Government would have been criticised both in the House and in the teaching profession.
The Bill is not particularly welcome. It is seen as a response to a very difficult position in which teachers have been trained but have no jobs. In such a circumstance there are bound to be rough edges. No matter how one seeks to deal with that circumstance, some teachers are bound to fall on the wrong side of the line for pensions or wage increases. If the Government were persuaded that the date should be 31st March 1977, I am sure that there would be those who complained that that was a bad date because the teaching profession might be due another increase on 1st April which would affect pensions.
Opposition Members who pretend that they are searching for absolute justice should recognise that it is not so easy to achieve as it might seem. Nevertheless, I lend my support to those who seek to postpone the date until 31st March. If the Government accepted that change they would do more justice and would show that they had flexibility and an open mind.

Mr. Russell Johnston: It is with pleasure that I often follow the speeches of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), but seldom have I heard him put up such a hesitant and uncertain defence of Government policy. This time he concluded, after not very powerful rhetoric, that he disagreed with them anyway.
There seems to be general agreement in the debate so far that the Government should consider giving way on this matter. I was not present on 25th October—

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Where were you?

Mr. Johnston: I was in Europe. It would be a pity if the Government were not prepared to make exceptions but were quite happy to create anomalies. The original contribution from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) demonstrated most effectively that if the Bill goes through in its present form it could result in injustice to a considerable number of people. Clearly that is something that we should seek to avoid. I therefore lend my support to the amendment.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Millan: Far too much attention has been devoted to the operative date of the Bill. The date was chosen as the first practicable date in all the circumstances for bringing the Bill into operation. However, any teacher likely to be affected by it can retire voluntarily at any time, and any teacher who does not want to retire on 1st January 1977 because of his pension can retire today, tomorrow or on 31st December 1976.

Mr. Monro: That is a daft argument.

Mr. Millan: It is not such a daft argument, as the hon. Member will learn if he listens. I should explain why I do not think 1st December 1976 provides any improvement in the Bill, particularly on the question of pensions.
Anyone who, because of pension considerations, was worrying about retiring on 1st January could retire voluntarily at any time between now and 31st December. This is understood by teachers, who are remarkably well informed about the pension implications of particular retirement dates. There is no question of anyone being forced to stay on until 1st January and thereby losing a pension increase. That cannot happen with the Bill as drafted. Those affected by the Bill will not all have to leave on 1st January. It is a matter largely for the discretion of education authorities. Many teachers will carry on, some for a considerable time after that date. It is simply an operative date—the earliest date on which someone can be compelled to go—and not the date on which all 65-year-old teachers will be removed from our schools. I hope that I have made clear that this date is not as significant as some hon. Members seem to think.
Two arguments have been raised in the debate—pensions and the period of

notice. They are contrary arguments. One set of amendments has an operative date before 1st January and the other a date two months later. If the argument is that 1st January will create an injustice for those who retire before the end of this year—an argument which I do not accept—the date 1st March would make their situation even worse.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Millan: I hope the hon. Gentleman will let me complete what I have to say. He might even be a little more cheerful then and not his usual disgruntled and disagreeable self.
There is no merit in putting 31st December rather than 1st January in the Bill. Those who have advocated this date have done so under a misunderstanding.
However, there is the other argument about period of notice and an operative date of 1st March. The provisions of the Bill relate to retirement and not to dismissal, redundancy or other forms of termination of employment, and I am advised that the normal notice given by authorities under the Contracts of Employment Act would not be necessary. We are dealing with retirements which are statutorily laid down.
If we adopted 1st January as the operative date, there would be no legal difficulty about giving notice to teachers. However, I have always taken the view that we should be reasonable in these matters and, even if there were no legal requirement, it could be argued that, since the Bill is going through in November, there is only a short time until 1st January and that therefore it would be reasonable to have a later commencement date so that education authorities who wished to ask teachers to leave on the operative date would be able to give them reasonable notice.
I had intended, in any case, in the circular which I shall send when the Bill receives Royal Assent, to tell local authorities that I hoped that in exercising their powers they would give reasonable notice to teachers. I have had a letter from the General Secretary of the EIS making the same point.
On balance, I think that the best thing that the House could do would be to accept the amendments providing for a


commencement date of 1st March. No one could then be accused of giving too short a period of notice.
When I send out the circular, I shall say that although the date has been put forward by two months, I hope that authorities which wish to retire teachers on the operative date—now 1st March—will still take the decision as soon as possible and, if possible, give the teachers notice immediately so that reasonable notice is given to all individuals.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I am grateful to the Government for accepting our arguments, agreeing to change the date and accepting that injustice would have been done otherwise.
I was a little unhappy when the Minister referred to me as being normally disgruntled, especially since we have not had such a grumpy Secretary of State for a long time.
I am glad that he accepted our arguments and am grateful for the assurance that we might get not just a sensible decision as a result of a Conservative initiative but also a smile on the face of the Secretary of State. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 2, in page 1, line 12, leave out '1st January 1977' and insert '1st March 1977'.

No. 4, in page 1, line 15, leave out '1st January 1977' and insert '1st March 1977'.—[Mr. Teddy Taylor.]

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 16, at end insert—
'(2) For avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that the date of the teacher's attaining age 65 and 31st December 1976 shall be the last dates of teaching service of the teachers specified in heads (a) and (b) respectively in subsection (1) above.
(3) In the case of teachers specified in head (b) of subsection (1) above, an education authority or managers of a grant-aided school shall make to a teacher payment in lieu of salary and of notice of termination of employment to which he would otherwise have been entitled but for the application of the provisions of this Act.'.
Clearly we cannot proceed with this amendment in detail and have a vote on it because it refers to the situation which existed before the House made the two

amendments a few moments ago. However, the Secretary of State said in his reply to those amendments that because we were substituting a new retirement date, teachers would not be entitled to a period of notice. Does he think that this is fair or reasonable? We are not just substituting a new retirement date; we are removing teachers' right to work.
If the Under-Secretary, instead of doing important work here, were a 66-year-old teacher in a Glasgow school, he would, before this Bill was introduced, have had the right to work in an unpromoted post for a considerable period. This right is now being removed and is changing teachers' expectations of employment and income.
Have the Government considered the full implications of saying that teachers whose employment prospects are being destroyed by the Bill—albeit from a better date—should not be entitled to any notice? Has the Secretary of State cleared this with the Secretary of State for Employment? Quite apart from the legal aspect, is it fair to make a change in a person's prospects and expectations of employment and to give him no period of notice?

Mr. Millan: I had great difficulty understanding the first part of the amendment when it was tabled and I still find difficulty understanding it. It is in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan). I think that it was related to what my hon. Friend was suggesting in Amendment No. 5, but it was almost certainly misconceived and would have had almost the opposite effect to that which he sought to achieve. I think that the hon. Member for Cathcart has made clear that he does not expect the amendment to be accepted.
Paragraph (3) is more easily understood and I note what the hon. Member for Cathcart said about it. By putting forward the date, we are probably dealing with an immediate situation as far as notice is concerned. Whatever the legal requirements and the fact that we are dealing with retirement rather than normal termination of employment, authorities should behave in a reasonable way and give people reasonable notice.
This is not a matter that concerns only teachers. It concerns many other people in the public service who are able to be employed at the discretion of their respective authority but who could be required to retire at a particular time because they have passed the normal retiring age. There is no particular problem for teachers. They are not in a position that is different from that of any other public servants.
I do not know what the amendment means by
payment in lieu of salary".
If that is a suggestion that some compensation should be paid, I cannot accept it. I do not know any basis on which we could calculate compensation for a teacher who is asked to retire at the age of 65 and who goes to the authority and says "But you do not appreciate that if you had not asked me to retire now I had intended to continue until I was 70. Will you compensate me for those five years?" There is no way in which we could make that calculation. I do not think that compensation is relevant.
The amendment is fairly obscure about what
payment in lieu of salary
would mean. I hope that with the new date and a reasonable degree of notice that we need not worry about payment in lieu of salary. I believe we can assume that authorities will behave reasonably. If we were to write something into the Bill, apart from creating a precedent for many other public servants, which could be extremely expensive, there would be no basis on which to make the payments.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I hope that this is a matter that the Government will bear in mind. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 11, at end add—
'(3B) In exercising their discretionary powers under subsection (2) above, education authorities shall give consideration to the date of entry or re-entry into the teaching profession of the teacher concerned and, in particular, to whether the teacher was recruited under the special recruitment scheme, in so far as these factors affect pension entitlement'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this we may take Amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 11, at end add—
'(3C) In exercising their discretionary powers under subsection (2) above, the education authority shall take into account representations from teachers' professional organisations'.

Mr. Taylor: The House will recall that on Second Reading it was pointed out by the Government that the local authorities, in operating their discretionary powers under the Bill, would be reasonable. I am making two suggestions with which I hope the Government will at least agree even if they cannot accept the amendment.
We want to draw attention to the position of those who entered the profession under the special recruitment scheme, people who entered teaching rather late in life and did so with the expectation that they would have the right to work until 70, thereby increasing their salary and their pension. Some of these people have had limited service and, because of the Bill, will be deprived of the right to work for a further few years to add to their salary and pension. We are talking about a lot of money because five years, as a result of Houghton, can result in a substantial increase in salary. As pension is based on an individual's salary at the end of his employment, it can mean a great deal of money.
5.45 p.m.
If an authority were faced with the prospect of putting out of employment three teachers out of five, I hope that it might at least have regard to the fact that one of the teachers, for example, entered through the special recruitment scheme and would have only a small pension on retirement. I hope that it would appreciate that the Bill would remove the prospects that they were offered on recruitment.
We have to bear in mind that not so long ago, in the golden age of the Conservative Government, we were appealing to people of advanced years to go into teaching to help solve the problem of a teacher shortage. Happily we were able to remove that problem, largely due to the splendid work of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) when he was in the Scottish Office. We now have a glut. However, many people came


into the teaching profession in the hope and expectation, along with almost a sense of public duty, of helping out in meeting a real problem.
I am proposing that in exercising its discretion an education authority, should take into account representations from teachers' professional organisation. There have been disturbing indications during the debate and over the past few weeks that there has been a worsening of relations between the administration of the Scottish Office and the teachers' professional organisations. That is something that worries and concerns us all. There have always been extremely good relations in the past, but there are now disturbing indications that information has not been available and that other information has perhaps been misleading. Further, the teachers' associations, and one in particular, have been complaining about a lack of consultation.
I hope that the Government will at least agree that in principle the education authorities should take into account representations from the professional organisations in exercising their discretionary powers.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I can remember, along with most lion. Members now present, the days when we were trying to recruit people into the teaching profession. Many schemes were put up to get them into the net, so to speak. We are now involved in retiring them. There were clearly rather bad forecasts and rather bad machinery. I want to know what the Scottish Office is doing to improve the machinery and the forecasting. I have asked this question before and received no answer. I wonder whether I shall have an answer today.

Mr. McElhone: The purpose of the amendment is to specify certain factors that an education authority should be required to take into account in deciding whether it is appropriate to re-employ a retired teacher. There is much to be said—much has been said—in favour of each of the factors that are set out in the amendment. Although I am asking the Committee to reject the amendments, that is not because I consider that an education authority should not take any of these factors into account should it consider it appropriate to do so.
The main reason that I am asking the Committee to reject the amendments is that I consider that an education authority should be given the widest possible discretion to determine in all the circumstances which factors are relevant to a particular case when considering whether to re-employ a retired teacher. If we specifically require an education authority to take into account certain factors, that might be construed as indicating that they are the only factors that it should take into account. Further, it could mean that an authority would give undue importance to those factors at the expense of others that it might be argued are of equal importance, or even of greater importance. For example, a factor to be borne in mind may well be the existence of a large number of unemployed teachers in the authority's area.
I think it is appropriate for Parliament to trust local authorities to exercise their discretion properly after taking into account all the relevant factors in a particular case. I see no reason to doubt that an education authority would exercise its powers to employ a retired teacher in anything but a sympathetic manner.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) referred to consultation with the teachers' organisations and their relations with the Scottish Office. In my period of office, extending just over a year, the association of myself and my right hon. Friend with the teachers' unions has never been better. I see their representatives very often, both formally and informally. I can assure the Committee that in the many discussions that I have had with them they have always understood our position. It is their duty to represent their members in the best possible way, and I expect them to do so. However, taking into account that duty, they understand to a large degree the problems facing the Government.
It is the desire of my right hon. Friend and myself that education authorities, in considering whether they should reemploy teachers or whether they should employ teachers at all, should show some concern for the late entrant and those who came in under the special recruitment scheme. I believe that local authorities, especially the regional authorities, will take that into account. Indeed, COSLA has given an assurance to my right hon. Friend and myself that it will


treat such cases in a most sympathetic manner.
Although I am sympathetic to the amendments, I think that they would limit the discretion of local authorities. To some extent I share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Cathcart, but I think he will agree that his experience of Glasgow Corporation as an education authority allowed him to come to the conclusion that it always treats teachers in a most reasonable way. That pattern has continued with Strathclyde and other regional authorities. I am confident that the authorities will take into account the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that they will have some concern for the late entrants or those in special circumstances. There could be a number of categories where an education authority has to have regard to the domestic or financial circumstances of a teacher they might employ. I hope that the House will accept that position.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I wonder whether I may now have an answer to the question that I have put twice. If there is no answer, I shall call a Division because of the sheer incompetence and rudeness of the Government Front Bench.

Mr. McElhone: I hope that I have not been discourteous to a very reasonable Opposition Member. I was not aware that he had been asking questions in another Committee. However, I am still not clear about the question he is pursuing. Of course, I shall try to help him.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I am very surprised that the Minister has not read the Second Reading proceedings. I will repeat my question. All of us remember the days when we were agitating and thinking up schemes to get teachers into the profession. We were short of teachers. Now we are doing our best to encourage them to retire early. Clearly, the forecasts were faulty. I am not blaming anyone for that. I do not know why the forecasts were faulty. However, what is the Scottish Office doing now to improve the forecasts? Does it have any machinery for doing so? What is it doing about this matter for the future, so that we shall not be faced with this sort of problem in the years to come?

Mr. McElhone: The hon. Gentleman has always been reasonable in debate. I assure him that my right hon. Friend is sending out a document for consultation on the projected figures for people entering the training colleges. The hon. Member may remember that we debated this important point recently, on the Education Bill. I am sure that the House would not want me now to go into the arguments as to who was responsible for the large number of teachers leaving the colleges this year. Suffice it to say that another Government were in power during that time.
However, without drawing out the argument any further, I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend has taken steps to ensure that the forecasting is improved, and a document will be going to various bodies concerned with the matter within the next few weeks.

Mr. Monro: The Minister is like a football team that started the season badly and then fell away. His answers are getting worse and worse. He does not even know his facts. He knows very well that the secondary school teachers who came out of the colleges of education during the past summer went there under his jurisdiction just over a year ago. Why is it that over the last two years the Minister has allowed the intake to colleges of education for graduate secondary teachers to increase when the situation was staring him in the face?
Would the Minister mind reading the White Paper of December 1972—obviously he has never done so—which made a very accurate forecast of the situation, provided that the intakes were reduced each year? The Minister did not do that, and that is the reason for the present trouble.
Before the Minister gets excited and takes off, let me say that I accept responsibility for those who went to the colleges in September 1973, but not those who went in 1974 or 1975. What is more important is that had we not been in the present miserable economic situation, we would have employed the teachers concerned.
There is a host of questions to be answered. May we have the answers now?

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I share my hon. Friend's annoyance at the Minister's


inadequate reply. The Government cannot give a good reply. The facts are staring them in the face. The reason why we are in this desperate situation is that there was too much recruitment in 1974 and 1975, years in which the Under-Secretary had responsibility for this matter, although not just in his present capacity. I am afraid that this is a rather sad tale of miscalculation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Hutchison), in his very courteous way, has always said, all we can do is to forget the past and to say "Let us make sure that we do much better in the future."

Mrs. Bain: I take it from the comments of Opposition Members that is is now official Opposition policy to adopt minimum standards in Scottish schools.

Mr. Taylor: I am afraid that minimum standards in Scottish schools can mean a lot of things. What the Conservative Party stands for is ever-increasing standards of attainment and success. The only sure way of achieving this will be if the SNP starts supporting the Conservatives in bringing down the present Government. In the only Division we have had on this matter the SNP supported the Government solidly. However, we are in danger of straying. We hope for the best for the future. In the light of the Minister's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 8, in page 2, line 11, at end add—
'(3C) In exercising their discretionary powers under subsection (2) above, the education authority shall take into account representations from teachers' professional organisations'.—[Mr. Teddy Taylor.]

Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Millan: I was asked earlier about teacher numbers and I promised that I would make a statement. This seems to be the most sensible point at which to make the statement.
Clearly, there has been some confusion about the number of teachers who will

be affected by the Bill. I am glad of this opportunity of trying to clear up some of the confusion.
There have been a number of references to numbers, including that made by my noble Friend, Lord Kirkhill, in the other place on 27th July, reported at c. 1274 of Hansard. I also dealt with the question of numbers on Second Reading in this House. Also, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave Answers to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) on 20th October and 1st November. Those Answers are relevant. There have also been letters written by my Department to Mr. Docherty, the General Secretary of the SSTA, which dealt with the question of numbers. I should like to pick up points arising from all these references.
To explain the position it is necessary to distinguish between three groups of teachers who are at present employed over the age of 65. Some of the confusion has arisen—not all of it, unfortunately—because of confusion about the kinds of teachers about whom we are talking. First, there are promoted teachers, who have, at the employing authority's discretion, been kept in post beyond the age of 65—I am talking about the present position—although they had no entitlement to that since their age of retiral was 65.
Secondly, there are employed in the schools at present unpromoted teachers who have the discretion to stay on beyond the age of 65 as they have a retiral age of 70 and have exercised that discretion.
Thirdly, there are teachers who have actually retired but have later come back to the schools and are employed by the authorities under arrangements which they have made between themselves and the authorities. This group will comprise teachers who were promoted and teachers who were unpromoted at the date of their retirement.
The first category, promoted teachers kept on beyond the age of 65, are affected by the Bill because the Bill restricts employment in a promoted post after that age to only three months.
The second group, the unpromoted teachers, are those most affected by the


Bill since the discretion about employment after the age of 65 is removed from the individual teacher and given to the employing authority.
The third group of teachers, mainly those who have retired and come back, are affected by the Bill to the extent that it will now be possible for authorities to offer contracts with a maximum of only one year. I do not have detailed information about those teachers of this category employed in the schools at present, but a large number of them will certainly be employed on a temporary basis or subject to short periods of notice. In practice the Bill will not affect those so employed, although it may affect others.
6 p.m.
I come to the figures that have been given. Generally speaking, the figures were given in response to questions which were put in a particular way. The figures given by Lord Kirkhill referred to full-time posts, both promoted and unpromoted. As he said, the total number at the beginning of the 1975–76 Session was about 300.
The Answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn on 20th October referred to unpromoted teachers only but, in giving the figure of 500 for education authority schools, the Answer took account of the full-time equivalent of teachers employed only part-time. The detailed figures for education authority schools were as follows: full-time permanent 243, full-time temporary 96, part-time with full-time equivalent 157 and occasional, four. That gives a total of 500 to which we can add 13 similarly calculated for grant-aided schools.
The statistics that we collect do not show the kind of contract which part-time teachers had with their respective authorities, so that it is impossible from those statistics—which were gathered for another purpose—to give the exact numbers affected by the Bill. In any case, the statistics were at September 1975.
Mr. Docherty wrote two letters to the Department on 15th September, one to the Statistics Branch and one to the Superannuation Branch. The letters did not ask specifically for the numbers of teachers affected by the Bill but were in more general terms. The letter to the Statistics Branch asked how many non-promoted teachers over 65 were at

present in service. I have to apologise to the House and Mr. Docherty, and I do so publicly, for I am sorry to say that the reply to Mr. Docherty was inaccurate, as the figures given were stated to be at September 1976 when they were the 1975 figures. That clears up the question asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) at the beginning of our debates about my having said that the 1976 figures were not available although apparently they were given to Mr. Docherty. There was a mistake. The heading on the letter should have been "September 1975" instead of "September 1976".
Unfortunately, the Statistics Department interpreted the wording of Mr. Docherty's letter as referring to those of the age of 66 and over, and the figures were given on that basis.
I regret these errors—one perhaps a misunderstanding and the other a simple error by my Department—especially as the figures given formed the basis of a letter which Mr. Docherty subsequently wrote to hon. Members. He was perfectly entitled to write that letter and to draw some, but not all, of the conclusions he drew from the figures he received from the Department.
Mr. Docherty's letter to the superannuation branch asked for the number of non-promoted teachers over 65 in reckonable service—that is, reckonable for superannuation purposes. Superannuation records are kept up to date on a day-to-day basis and the reply showed that at the latest date—September 1976—there were about 460 teachers aged 65 or over in service. About 50 of these had indicated their intention to retire by December 1976. It is impossible to know how many of these retirals would have happened in any case and how many were in anticipation of the Bill.
Moreover, these figures, as the letter to Mr. Docherty explained, included promoted as well as unpromoted teachers, and also a small number of teachers who would be employed outside the school sector and some who are no doubt employed in further education where the retiral provisions are exactly similar to those in the schools. The Bill will, therefore, affect further education teachers in the same way as it affects teachers in schools.
It is fair to assume that most of those in reckonable service are employed full time or, if not, on a fairly long-term basis, but the superannuation records, which are kept for other reasons, do not make that distinction. They are concerned with teachers in relation to pensions, not with teachers moving from one kind of service to another.
When I said in the Second Reading debate on 25th October that I believed that by 1st January about 400 teachers in Scottish schools would be affected by the Bill in one way or another, I did not distinguish between promoted and unpromoted teachers. That was a fair statement but I made clear at the time that the position was uncertain.
Looking back at the various statements that have been made and the various answers to different questions, I regret that I did not explain the figures in more detail during my Second Reading speech. Had I done so at least some of the confusion that has since arisen might have been prevented. In fairness, I cannot give a better figure than I gave in my Second Reading speech. The figure may be less than 400; it is unlikely to be more. I hope that the Committee will accept that the figure I gave was given in good faith. If it turns out in the event to be an overestimate, I very much regret it, but even when the Bill is implemented it will be difficult to find out exactly how many teachers are affected by it.
I apologise for giving wrong figures to Mr. Docherty and the confusion which has caused a large number of hon. Members a great deal of inconvenience. I also apologise if, in dealing with the matter on Second Reading in rather less detail than I have done today, I inadvertently misled several hon. Members when what I said was taken with other answers that have been given. I hope that what I have said today will be recognised to be as good a statement as I can make about the figures and as a fair statement of the position.
We are not simply dealing with the number of people who will be immediately affected by the Bill. Whatever the numbers are, the main purpose of the Bill remains. The Bill has a significance beyond the next few months, as it is meant to provide permanently for the

overall change in teacher supply from a period of acute shortage to the present period of overall surplus and the prospect over the next few years of getting teacher supply and demand properly into balance. If in the event it turns out that all our figures are wrong—I hope that will not be so—a significant number of teachers will still be involved. The changes made by the Bill are necessary to enable us to move into the new situation of teacher surplus. I hope that that statement will be helpful to the Committee.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Minister has made an almost unprecedented apology to the Committee for the figures he gave to the SSTA being apparently for the wrong date, incorrect and covering the wrong period. He also made a generous apology for his speech in the Second Reading debate. We should be less than gracious if we did not accept his handsome apology for the serious lack of information on a Bill which is being rushed through at the end of the Session. We are entitled to ask the Minister what steps are being taken to give us the information we want, which is not the detailed information to which he referred.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Spring-burn (Mr. Buchanan) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland on 1st November:
… how many of the estimated 400 school teachers over 65 years of age at present in service in Scotland in unpromoted posts are in temporary, part-time or occasional posts …".
The Answer was given by the Under-Secretary of State as follows:
The estimate of 400 cannot be broken down into the categories requested." —[Official Report, 1st November 1976; Vol. 918, c. 504.]
If the figure for September 1975 is available, why is it not now possible to break up the figures into the categories requested?
Another query relates to the Secretary of State's Second Reading speech on 25th October. The right hon. Gentleman then said that he believed that the numbers affected would amount to 400 teachers, but added:
That is the extent to which, by making room in the schools, we could be making jobs available for newly qualified teachers who at present find it difficult to obtain jobs."—[Official Report, 25th October 1976; Vol. 918, c. 52.]


He did not then say that there would be 400 affected, but that there would be 400 spare jobs. We now hear that that is probably not the case—in other words, that even if the figure of 400 teachers is correct, there will not be 400 jobs available. We understand that they cover all categories affected, including unpromoted positions, and that the figure of 400 includes temporary, part-time and occasional teachers.
On thing that stands out a mile is that if one has 20 part-time teachers at age of 65 and decides to make them redundant or to retire them, one does not replace them with 20 young teachers from the colleges. Perhaps we may be told by the Minister the number of full-time equivalent teachers who might be put out of post to create that number of jobs.
I am worried that the situation, according to the break-up figures for September and October 1975, will mean that instead of these provisions covering 416 teachers above the age of 66, the actual figure will be only 180 permanent teachers and only 46 secondary school teachers. Is there any information available about the number of those teachers who are teaching subjects in which there is a shortage? We are trying to arrive at a rough estimate as to how many jobs could be made available depending on the discretion of the local authorities. What would be ideal for that purpose would be for the House to have a statement showing how many teachers are serving in the schools who are 65 years or over and who possibly will be affected by the Bill. That should not be too difficult a task since there are only a small number of education authorities. We are told by the Secretary of State that the September 1976 survey is not yet available. When will it be available?
If the Government bring forward a Bill at this end of the Session, the least one expects is that they will make some kind of estimate of the number of jobs likely to be made available if local authorities were to apply the Bill rigidly—and obviously they will not do so. We are unhappy about a situation when the Government admit that they do not know how many teachers may be affected or how many new jobs will be created. This underlines our view that the Bill is basically a cosmetic operation.
6.15 p.m.
I wish to ask four straight questions of detail. In the statement handed to Mr. Docherty, which we now understand was incorrect, there was a note stating that the source was "TF/1/2, October 1976". Was that also an error? One can understand a typist or secretary putting in the wrong date, but it is strange that the source also should be wrong. May we be told why?
Secondly, if it was possible to give separate details about different categories of teachers in respect of September 1975, why is it not possible to give some split in respect of September 1976, as would appear to be the case, judging by the Written Answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland on Monday, at c. 504 of Hansard.
Thirdly, as the Minister has admitted that the figure of 400 teachers may be wrong, does he also withdraw the statement made on Second Reading to the effect that by making room in the schools he could make jobs available for newly qualified teachers? That is a significant point.
Lastly, when shall we be given the September 1976 figures, and, indeed, why can we not have them now? It is disturbing that this Bill is being rushed through in order to give the general public the impression that many jobs are being created for young teachers, when the fact is that the numbers involved are very small indeed, and when the Government do not even appear to know those numbers.

Mr. Millan: I do not want to repeat the exact words that I used on Second Reading. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) drew attention to my statement that by making room in the schools we could make jobs available for newly qualified teachers who were finding difficulty in obtaining jobs. I did not definitely say that we would be doing so. I said in a later passage that the number of teachers involved would depend on how local authorities exercised their discretion. I was at pains to explain that on Second Reading, and I also wish to do so today.
I have never said that all teachers over the age of 65 would come out of schools on 1st January. Indeed, the Opposition's view was that it would be grossly unfair


for all teachers over 65 to be removed from school forthwith. Therefore, the immediate impact will depend on how authorities deal with individual cases. If hon. Members will examine the words I used on Second Reading, they will see that I made the matter quite clear. I am sure that it is within the understanding of all who have taken an interest in the Bill that that was the situation.
I turn to the parliamentary Answer that was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) on Monday. The figure of 400 used last week was largely related to the superannuation figures which were the most up-to-date figures we had, but they are gathered for other purposes and do not make the distinction which I was asked to make between the categories of part-time and full-time teachers. They are individual teachers, not equivalent full-time posts. I cannot split the superannuation records, and shall never be able to do so, unless those records are kept in a different way. If hon. Members will examine in tomorrow's Hansard what I said a little earlier, they will see that I made a strong case for basing the estimates on the superannuation figures, particularly since the other figures are a year out of date. We can make reasonable assumptions because most of the figures relate to reckonable service and full-time permanent posts.
The hon. Gentleman may not have quite understood that when I spoke of part-time teachers my figures concerned full-time equivalents, so many more teachers are involved. If one removed part-time teachers from the schools, one would make available an equivalent number of full-time jobs. I also made clear in my statement that most of those part-time teachers would not be affected by the Bill because they have arrangements with the authorities which probably provide for a short period of notice on either side.
If, having read my statement, hon. Members still feel that I have not clarified the situation sufficiently, I shall try to explain further by correspondence. No doubt Mr. Docherty will look carefully at what I have said and if he should challenge my figures, I shall be pleased to examine what he says.
The hon. Member for Cathcart mentioned the wording of the statement given to Mr. Docherty. There is no significance in the date. It was the date on which the letter was typed. The reference TF/1/2 refers to two of the large branches in the Scottish Education Department and so far as I know they have no special significance.
I am sorry that the information from the September 1976 statistical survey is not available. The information is still coming in and will not be available for some time. The Scottish Education Department collects a large number of statistics and we are always reluctant to add ad hoc inquiries to its duties, even for a good reason. We are trying not to impose additional burdens on local authorities. With hindsight, perhaps it might have been better to conduct a general, straight ad hoc survey a month or two ago to get the figures. Perhaps that would have been sensible, but we did not do it. The principle behind the Bill remains the same, whatever the numbers involved.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Secretary of State has failed to answer some of my questions. Were the figures that he read out in his original statement substitutes for those in the statement given to Mr. Docherty, or are they more up to date? Were the figures of 243 permanent teachers and 96 full-time teachers those which Mr. Docherty should have got for last year, or are they more up to date?
Surely we can expect to be told how many teachers over the age of 65 are teaching in Scottish schools. That information should be readily available. One would also expect the number of full-time teachers to be readily available. Those are basic figures which should be available to hon. Members when considering a Bill of this kind.
The Government have postponed the State opening of Parliament because there is too much business. One therefore assumes that the Government will be careful about what legislation they introduce. If the Government argue the case for a Bill to be introduced at the end of the Session, one expects them to have some idea of the figures involved.
The Minister has explained the problems and the mistakes that he has made. When will the September 1976 figures be


available? Is the delay caused because the local authorities have not sent in their returns yet, or because the Scottish Education Department has not had time to process them? May we have a statement on the September 1976 figures similar to that given to Mr. Docherty?

Mr. Millan: The hon. Member asked whether the figures that I gave were a substitute for those given to Mr. Docherty. The answer is "Yes". If the hon. Member examines my statement he will see that the breakdown adds up to the 500 education authority unpromoted teachers concerned at September 1975.
In view of what has happened, I shall see whether I can get the figures from the September survey brought forward more rapidly than would otherwise be possible, because the normal processes take some considerable time. On Second Reading I said that I would make available to the House the information on September 1976 as soon as I got it. I shall do that even if it is information which does or does not justify what I have said. I shall try to obtain the information as a kind of special exercise.
I wanted to make a statement to the House this afternoon rather than write private letters to my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn or to Mr. Docherty, because I thought that all hon. Members should know the position.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 2

CITATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 9, in page 2, line 14, leave out '1st January 1977' and insert '1st March 1977'.—[Mr. McElhone.]

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 16 at end insert—
'(3A) This Act shall expire on 1st March 1980, but may be further extended to 1st March 1982 by an order approved by both Houses of Parliament'.
While many hon. Members accept the need for a Bill of this sort to try to help

to deal with teacher unemployment, many in the profession and outside the House are unhappy about the way in which teachers' retirement age is shoved up and down according to teacher shortages.
The Bill should not be a permanent measure but should last only until 1980 with the possibility of an extension of a further two years by order. That is what the amendment proposes. Between now and then it would be possible for a proper survey to be conducted into the appropriate age for teacher retirement.
It is wrong for the ages to be put up and down depending on the employment situation. I hope that by imposing a date for the expiry of the Bill it will be possible to introduce more objective criteria for teacher retirement. If the economy improves and a Conservative Government are returned, there may be extra demands for teachers because we shall improve standards in our schools. We could be restricted by the Bill, which puts curbs on local authorities.
I hope that the Government will accept this sensible amendment, which will provide for more flexibility and time to consider the appropriate retirement age for teachers.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I, too, am not very keen on this kind of Bill. I do not favour compulsory retiral dates. In the best ordered society people should be allowed to work for as long as they want and are able, and not be compelled to give up at a predetermined date. But I was more than puzzled by the contribution of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), not for the first time. He suggested that we should have a survey to establish objective criteria for when it would or would not be appropriate for teachers to retire. I do not believe that any such survey is possible, because I do not think that objective criteria exist. I do not want any more surveys than we already have.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. McElhone: The one certain fact among the many matters disputed this afternoon is that we shall not have a Conservative Government for as long as anyone can foresee. That is evident from the Opposition's conduct, especially this afternoon.
The amendment provides that the Bill should cease to have effect on 1st March 1980, though it might be continued to 1st March 1982 by an order approved by both Houses of Parliament. It is not acceptable because it would mean that after 1st March 1982, at the latest, there would be no statutory provisions governing the retirement of teachers employed by education authorities or by the managers of grant-aided schools.
Since the Second Word War there has been only a very short period—from 1st February 1969 to 1st August 1970—when there have been no statutory provisions about the retirement of teachers in Scotland. Provisions about such retirements were reintroduced in Section 16 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1969 following requests from the Educational Institute of Scotland and the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association.
The amendment has probably been prompted by fears that the provisions of the Bill would no longer be appropriate if the present teacher unemployment should change back to a position of teacher shortage. Such fears are groundless. Although the Bill has been prompted by the recent change from a teacher shortage to a teacher surplus, the reduction of the retiring age of unpromoted teachers from 70 to 65 is in no way a temporary measure. The upper age of retirement for teachers in England and Wales is 65, and very few employees in the public sector in Scotland have any higher retiring ages.
Moreover, the drafting of the amendment is defective, because it makes no provision as to who should make the order which may be approved by Parliament. Therefore, I ask the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Under Secretary has nut a convincing argument against the amendment, and therefore I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Mr. McElhone: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 2, line 17, leave out subsection (4).
I am glad that we had such a reasonable approach from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) on

the last amendment. I hope that his colleague, the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), will adopt a similar approach later. We should then soon get on with our business.
This amendment leaves out the conventional subsection added in another place to avoid questions of privilege. It is purely formal, and involves no issue of substance.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: We are glad that the Government accepted a major amendment removing what we had regarded as a real injustice in the Bill. We are glad that they accepted our arguments and extended the date for the coming into effect of the Bill from 1st January to 1st March.
I hope that the public, particularly unemployed teachers, will not expect too much of the Bill. Although it had been indicated that several hundred jobs might be involved, it is clear that many of those who are over 65 will not be retiring immediately, that some will not retire at all, and that some are not eligible for retirement. It is also clear that the removal of some, as they are part-timers, would not provide a full-time equivalent job. In those circumstances it is important that we should not wrongly raise the expectations of the unemployed teachers, and we are grateful for the Secretary of State's apology on the question of the figures.
It would have been helpful to have from the Under-Secretary an indication of how he saw the teacher employment position in the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Hutchison) said that he was very worried because estimates could always go wrong, and he asked whether forecasting could be improved. If the Government do not have a rough idea of what the effect of the Bill will be, it must be difficult for them to forecast.
It was discouraging that the Under-Secretary said that the teacher surplus was likely to continue for a considerable time. Can he give us any indication of precisely what he meant by that? Can he give an assurance that the measures which we understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer is shortly to introduce will not result in additional teacher unemployment in Scotland?

6.38 p.m.

Mr. McElhone: I cannot speak for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Although this is a small Bill, it is important. Many points have been made about how many teachers we can employ next session, but the important point is that the Bill is not just for one year. We hope that over the years it will help significantly in reducing teacher unemployment.
The Bill has been debated very fully. Whatever reservations the Opposition may have, we believe that it will help to bring unemployed young teachers into jobs. We have a great deal of sympathy for anyone who is unemployed. We are taking steps to help young teachers and those who came under the special recruitment scheme.
I thank all those who took part in the debate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State displayed his usual flexibility. I hope that the Opposition will accept his generous concession, made in response to the many requests from both sides of the House, as an indication of his attitude in trying to help the House in all matters concerning legislation. I hope that we can proceed as swiftly with the legislation with which we are to deal later today.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Orders of the Day — VALUATION AND RATING (EX EMPTED CLASSES) (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Clause 1

EXCLUSION FROM VALUATION ROLL OF SUBJECTS BELOW Low WATER MARK

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 7, after "lie", insert "float or are suspended".
This is a genuine probing and a rather small amendment. What I have proposed is that instead of giving the Secretary of State power to free from the rates burden—
lands and heritages which lie wholly or partly on, over or under the bed of the sea.
we should add the words—
float or are suspended".
I suggest this because I am not sure whether the word "over" covers the point that I am making. If something is over the sea bed, would that cover things which are suspended or are floating? I am thinking particularly of fish farming. One item that I would hope a future Secretary of State would consider exempting from rates would be fish farming cages.
I would have thought that fish farming cages did not lie on, over or under the bed of the sea. They are usually suspended. Do the words that I am proposing cover all eventualities?

Mr. John Corrie: I intervene to put a specific point to the Secretary of State. I am slightly worried that an oil rig might be rated twice. On Second Reading we talked about what would happen to oil rig building platform sites, because one could have a coffer-dam site built below the low water mark with a rig in it. I think that the Secretary off State said that as long as it was attached to the mainland, it could still be rated.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): When I looked at the Second Reading debate I thought my


reply was ambiguous. It might have suggested that not only was the permanent installation rateable but the rig as it was built was rateable until it was floated out. I did not actually mean that and I hope that I have not misled the hon. Gentleman on that point. It is, of course, a moveable structure and no more rateable when being constructed than a machine would be rated when it is being constructed for shipment elsewhere.

Mr. Corrie: I thank the Secretary of State for that explanation. That was the point that I was worried about and his intervention has cleared it up.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) has put forward an interesting argument about whether subjects can float or be suspended. The purpose and effect of the amendment is to extend the scope of the order-making power to lands and heritages which float or are suspended over the sea bed. I am sorry to say that its effect would add nothing to the clause as drafted.
It is difficult to imagine what might float or be suspended wholly or partly on, over or under the bed of the sea without lying wholly or partly on, over or under it. If that seems confusing, I am prepared to re-state it. The amendment would therefore have no effect on the meaning of the subsection. It is unnecessary and I have to resist it.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I am perfectly happy to accept the Minister's assurance, so long as when we come to fish farming he will not say that the amendment cannot be accepted because it would not be contained within the provisions of Clause 1. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remember that when we discuss fish farming. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 7, leave out 'or partly'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this we may take the following amendments:

No. 14, in Clause 2, page 3, line 1, leave out 'or partly'.

No. 1, in Title, line 3, leave out 'or partly'.

Mr. Grimond: As I said on Second Reading, I have some fundamental objections to the Bill, but a most important detail is that it applies not only to heritages
which lie wholly … over or under the bed of the sea.
but to those which lie
partly on, over or under the bed of the sea".
My first objection is that the word "partly" seems to be extraordinarily vague. I take it, however, that a heritage or structure any part of which was built below the low water mark would come within the scope of the Bill and, therefore, a jetty or a pier—as it would extend from above the high water mark to below the low water mark—would come within the scope of the Bill. Although that would make it possible to remove it from the rateable value which the local authorities could draw their income from, it is contrary to the general desire to give local authorities more sources of income.
It could also be extremely serious in my constituency. The estimate made by the Shetland Island Council of the valuation figures for piers and jetties alone, leaving out all other structures and pipelines, is £2 million. It will have serious effects in Orkney and Shetland if the Secretary of State should use his powers under the Bill. It would be most objectionable to rely upon the Secretary of State not to use his powers, because it has been a general principle that rating should not be in the hands of the Scottish Office but left to the independent valuers. Now we are giving the Secretary of State authority to intervene. However, if he does intervene, it would seem that it must create unfairness between one rateable subject and another.
I cannot see how that can be avoided. If the Secretary of State exempts any structure which is partly above the low water mark, that would be unfair on the other structures which are still subject to rating. If it is argued, as it was on Second Reading that this is a provision to prevent the oil companies from being too heavily taxed, I would adopt


the argument that it is not by the local authorities that the oil companies are heavily taxed. That taxation was taken by the Government for the Exchequer before this Bill was ever thought of.
If the Secretary of State is to use his discretion and bring in orders which will exempt oil companies but will not necessarily exempt other forms of enterprise, that would be most unfair. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would make good to the local authorities any lack of revenue which they suffer from the exemption of oil companies. In any case, it cannot be right for Parliament to pass a Bill which gives a power to the Secretary of State which is quite unknown to the general law of rating. It would allow him to rate not only structures in the sea but structures part of which are out of the sea and to discriminate between one type of structure and the others.
The other two amendments that we are discussing deal with the same point.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: This is a point which I raised on Second Reading and the answer which the Minister then gave was that the word "partly" was included to cover bridges. He said that it was difficult to bring within the scope of the Bill toll bridges which span waters as well as perhaps being partly involved in them. The answer suggested at the time by the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig)—with whom I associate myself on this occasion—was that bridges should be dealt with separately so that there is no doubt about their position. I understand that later we shall have an opportunity of considering two forms of amendment which would seek to do just that.
The word "partly" could cause a difficulty. I shall not repeat what I said about the legal interpretations to which that could give rise, but it could cause assessors considerable difficulty. As a consequence, difficulty will be caused to Ministers when considering what sort of exclusions are to be made to cover any changes in a valuation.
If we removed the need for this word "partly" to cover bridges, because bridges were dealt with separately, we should then have to consider the justification for the word at all. The definition clause says:

the sea means any area seaward of the lowest point to which the tide ebbs at ordinary spring tides and includes any estuary, arm of the sea and the waters of any channel, creek, bay or river seaward of that lowest point".
If that is the definition which has been employed, it seeks to give a point of delimitation where the land ends and the sea begins and consequently to separate that area where the right to value heritages exists from that where no such right exists.
If a definition in the Bill creates a fixed point and is capable of interpretation by assessors, lands valuation committees, the Lands Valuation Appeal Court and the Scottish Office, why is the word "partly" used? That fixed point of the subject is either below the mark—that is, in the sea—and therefore cannot be valued, or it is on land and can.
One example given on Second Reading was that of the submarine pipeline. In that case, the part of the subject which came above the sea from the definition point contained in the Bill could be valued, as indeed could other oil-related subjects on land, whereas that portion of the pipeline which was below the sea would get the benefit of the Bill.
In the case of jetties and piers, the Minister assured us that they could not be exempted by virtue of the Bill. However, the problem in legislation is that firm and proper intentions expressed by a Secretary of State can be reversed by his successor for policy and political reasons. If that is the case, we should make the Bill as self-explanatory as possible. That seems to rule out the use of the word "partly". I therefore ask the Minister to consider accepting the amendment.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Because of the inclusion of the word "partly", a Secretary of State might be able to remove from rating subjects on which rates are now paid. Subjects which extend below low water mark, like coal mines, piers and estuarial bridges, have been held by the courts to be rateable. Considerable sums are involved, particularly with piers. Would it be possible for the Secretary of State to remove such subjects from rating?

Mr. Millan: First, all that the Secretary of State can do under the Bill is to lay an order before Parliament under the affirmative resolution procedure. The


House actually makes the decision. Therefore, for hon. Members to talk about the Secretary of State being able to take subjects out of valuation or include them in valuation at his own discretion is to misunderstand and misrepresent the Bill.
That, incidentally, disposes of the argument that I should be interfering with the independence of the assessors. An assessor has a certain amount of independence, but he does not decide what is rateable and what is not. Parliament decides that through the various valuation Acts and Parliament will continue to decide it by the view that it expresses on any order under the Bill brought forward by any Secretary of State.
I explained on Second Reading why the Bill was drafted in this way. The intention is to give the Secretary of State the maximum flexibility. If I could forecast now my view in future of what should be rateable and what should not and could express that in satisfactory legislative terms, I should be willing to do so. But it is difficult in this unusual field to ensure that the legislative provisions are absolutely right. That is why it is done in this way—so that the matter can be dealt with by order, subject to confirmation by Parliament.
Having looked at the alternative procedure, of including special provisions for the bridges, I do not believe that that would have been so satisfactory. If we found that we did not have it right, other small pieces of valuation legislation might be needed to define this area accurately. This method of proceeding will be much more beneficial and will enable the House to express a view on the development of the Bill as an order is laid. If we tried to get everything right in the first place, we might find that it was not right but it would then be the law and we should have to put up with it.
The reason for the words "or partly" is that without them some of the land and heritages with which we intend to deal under the Bill would not be covered. Both hon. Members who have spoken accepted that that was so for the Forth and Tay road bridges, but without these words, they would be removed from the Bill. That is because, in layman's language, they are partly over the sea and partly on land. No one wants to

remove them from the provisions of the Bill.
On the other hand, nor do I accept that every bridge going over every little bit of water should not be subject to rates. That applies to the Forth and Tay bridges, but there may be others which are suitable for rating. We certainly need these words in this discretionary way to cover those two bridges.
The same applies to pipelines. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) suggested that it was not true for pipelines because if we took these words out and substituted another definition of the word "sea", it would be possible not to rate a bit of pipeline until it got to the boundary point and then to rate the bit on shore. That is not so, because it would be a single subject and it is not possible in valuation terms to divide it.

7 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in valuation law a single subject straddling a boundary is divided in quantity and value for entry into different valuation rolls—for example, the valuation roll for the former city of Glasgow and that for Renfrewshire? That is common throughout the country. Therefore, I cannot see why it should not be adopted here.

Mr. Millan: That may be so, but we have a situation where a single subject is divided so that part is rateable and part is not. It is a question not of dividing the valuation between one rating authority and another, but whether it should be rateable. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's formulation does not achieve the objective which he has in mind, because it is a single subject, as he recognised. A pipeline would be a single subject which did not lie wholly on, over or under the bed of the sea; if it did, it would stop before it got to the shore, and it would be a peculiar and unsatisfactory pipeline.
To take these words out of the Bill would not achieve the hon. Gentleman's objective. We need words of this nature to deal with bridges and pipelines. That does not mean that when the Bill is passed the Secretary of State—either myself or any successor—would immediately wish to exempt anything which


could possibly come under Clause 1. That is not what is intended.
I have given certain assurances about a number of subjects which we shall not remove from rating. It must not be assumed that we shall do that. If we attempted to do that, it would be subject to agreement by the House of Commons. But we need the words expressed in the terms in subsection (1) if we are to have the flexibility to work the exemption procedure. Therefore, I cannot advise the Committee to accept the amendment.

Mr. Grimond: I am totally unconvinced by the Secretary of State's speech. First, he has advanced no arguments as to why, if he wishes to exempt the Forth and Tay Bridges, they cannot be explicitly exempted. Secondly, although rating legislation is passed by the House of Commons, it has up to now been in a form which has not given discretion to the House or Ministers to make distinctions between one rateable subject and another.

Mr. Millan: For the right hon. Gentleman to talk about giving discretion to the House of Commons when it has legislative supremacy to decide what the law should be seems extraordinary.

Mr. Grimond: The right hon. Gentleman said that one of the reasons for

drafting the legislation in this form was that he did not quite know what he wanted to do. That was the alarming part of his speech. The House of Commons should not pass legislation which is designed to give some general umbrella to cover what the Government may wish to do in future.

I take the point that this is subject to an affirmative resolution of the House of Commons. We all know what that means. If the Government of the day have a majority—they normally do, despite the present situation, which is rather eccentric—the order will go through. Whatever the Secretary of State may say, there will be discrimination between one rateable subject and another. I consider that highly undesirable.

If the Government wish to exempt certain oil installations in the sea, they should come to the House of Commons and say in precise terms that the valuers shall not have power to rate beyond two or three miles. They should not introduce legislation which will cause injustice between one subject and another. In my constituency it could have extremely serious results. I maintain that this amendment ought to be made.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 18, Noes 104.

Division No. 370.]
AYES
[7.4 p.m.


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Reid, George
Welsh, Andrew


Crawford, Douglas
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wigley, Dafydd


Freud, Clement
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Henderson, Douglas
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)



Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Thompson, George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


MacCormick, Iain
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Mr. A. J. Beith and


Pardoe, John
Watt, Hamish
Mr. Russell Johnston


Penhaligon, David






NOES


Anderson, Donald
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Armstrong, Ernest
Eadie, Alex
Judd, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Kaufman, Gerald


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Kerr, Russell


Atkinson, Norman
English, Michael
Lambie, David


Bates, Alf
Evans, John (Newton)
Lamond, James


Bishop, E. S.
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Leadbitter, Ted


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lipton, Marcus


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Forrester, John
Lomas, Kenneth


Campbell, Ian
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
McCartney, Hugh


Canavan, Dennis
Golding, John
McElhone, Frank


Cant, R. B.
Gourlay, Harry
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Carmichael, Neil
Hardy, Peter
Mackintosh, John P.


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Cohen, Stanley
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
McNamara, Kevin


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hatton, Frank
Madden, Max


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Hunter, Adam
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Deakins, Eric
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Dempsey, James
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Doig, Peter
John, Brynmor
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Dormand, J. D.
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Molloy, William




Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Selby, Harry
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Oakes, Gordon
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Ovenden, John
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
White, James (Pollock)


Palmer, Arthur
Sillars, James
Whitehead, Phillip


Park, George
Silverman, Julius
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Parker, John
Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Phipps, Dr Colin
Small, William
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Prescott, John
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Woodall, Alec


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Spriggs, Leslie
Woof, Robert


Roper, John
Stallard, A. W.
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Rose, Paul B.
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)



Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Stoddart, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rowlands, Ted
Strang, Gavin
Mr. Ted Graham and


Sedgemore, Brian
Tierney, Sydney
Mr. Thomas Cox

Question accordingly negatived.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Grimond: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 8, after 'sea', insert:
'within three miles of the lowest point to which the tide ebbs at ordinary spring tides'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this we may take the following amendments:

No. 19, in Clause 3, page 3, line 27, leave out from 'tides' to end of line 30.

No. 20, in Clause 3, page 3, line 33, at end insert—
'(2) This Act shall not apply to rivers, bays, creeks and portions of the sea largely enclosed by land'.

Mr. Grimond: These are largely probing amendments suggested because I am not very clear as to the definitions in the Bill. I am advised that there is at any rate a view that subjects outside the three-mile limit cannot be rated anyway. Is in the Government's view that, were it not for this Bill, subjects outside the three-mile limit would be rated? The amendment is designed to find out whether this is so.
I do not think that the Bill should be drafted in this way, but, if the Government wish to draft it in this way, are they assuming that without the Bill subjects can be rated even beyond the three-mile limit?
I have some doubt as to the meaning of Clause 3(1), which says:
'the sea' means any area seaward of the lowest point to which the tide ebbs at ordinary spring tides and includes any estuary, arm of the sea and the waters of any channel, creek, bay or river seaward of that lowest point".
I am not at all certain what that means. The Thames, which flows past this building, is tidal, and at low water mark there is a channel which is much narrower than that at high water mark. If the Bill applied to England, would the whole of the Thames estuary come within it in regard to a channel at low water mark?
To take another example that is familiar to me, in East Fife the Guard-bridge Paper Works is on a part of the Eden estuary, which is tidal. It may well have a water intake below low water mark, and may well have an outlet for its effluent below low water mark.

Sir John Gilmour: I do not think that paper is made with salt water.

Mr. Grimond: The company may purify salt water for all I know. It could be held, under the interpretation in the Bill, that those paper works were partly below low water mark. I cannot believe that that is the Secretary of State's intention, but I do not understand where, under the definition, the sea begins. What is the "lowest point"? Is it the lowest point in the sea or the lowest point in the estuary, creek, bay or river?
I should have thought it was unnecessary to have rivers and creeks within the Bill and that it would be easier to remove them altogether. If the Secretary of State has good reason for not doing that, I hope that he will give us an explanation of the definition of the sea in Clause 3.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) has put some interesting points. I have another in relation to the three-mile limit proposed.
On Second Reading I asked which part of the sea belonged to which local authority. I asked whether the boundaries would be extended in what one might call a straight line, or whether they could cover the contours of the local authority boundary. If there were some item—rig, land or heritage—in the sea which had to be rated, obviously difficulties could arise if it were not clear which part of the sea belonged to which local authority.
The Under-Secretary was kind enough to write to me on 2nd September answering this point, but what he said was rather


alarming. Apparently, difficulties arose over determining common boundaries, but the seaward limits appeared for most purposes to be totally undefined. The reason appears to be that, when we drew up the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, the new regions and island areas were defined merely by reference to the boundaries of the abolished authorities, mostly deriving from those of ancient parishes. Apparently, in England and Wales there are pretty clear boundaries. In England and Wales the limit of a local authority area is the low-water mark and provision exists for accretions from the sea to be added to the appropriate local authority area. But it seems that in Scotland there is no such provision.
Obviously, if we are to have any item rated which is in the sea, it is important to know which part of the sea belongs to the rating area of which local authority. From what the Minister said in his letter, it seems that in drawing up the Local Government (Scotland) Act we made an error in not making provision for which part of the sea belonged to which local authority.
This is a responsibility which all those who took part in the drafting of that legislation must bear. But now that it is clear that there are no seaward limits defined as belonging to particular authorities, it may be appropriate to put it right. In view of the Minister's helpful but rather disturbing letter, we hope that he will say whether he has any plan in the future to take action to ensure that the situation in Scotland is made similar to that in England and Wales.

Mr. Millan: Dealing first with the point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), I am afraid that no one knows exactly what the position is. It has never been necessary in the past to worry too much about things floating out in the sea. There have not been many of them, and they have tended to be boats, which no one has considered should be subject to rateable value. So I would not be too hard on those who drew up the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 for defining the regions and islands areas by the boundaries of the old authorities, which were equally vague about this matter.
For some subjects which are partly in, say, estuarial waters, it is not difficult to decide that, if they are rated, they are in one specific authority. Obviously, the shaft of a coal mine which starts on land and goes out to sea is attached to somewhere on land. That land is part of a specific authority, and there is no difficulty about it. But, if we brought into the area of rating oil production platforms which are not attached to any particular piece of land, there would be considerable difficulty, apart from whether they are rated at all, in attributing an installation to one local authority area rather than to another. There are considerable difficulties of definition here.
If we had not been faced with the problem that a number of assessors have attempted to enter on the valuation roll and have rated certain oil production platforms and, therefore, made it necessary to do something rather quickly about it, we might have treated this in a more leisurely manner. It would have involved tremendous consultation if we had wanted to define every seaward boundary of every local authority area. The Western Isles and the West Coast of Scotland would have given us a great many problems in that regard.
I dare say at the end of the day it would have been possible to get a satisfactory solution. However, there is an element of urgency in this matter. We have to deal with issues which have already arisen. We have to deal with the position of the Forth and Tay road bridges, and we have used the definition in the Bill and the particular formulation in the drafting of the Bill to enable us to do the things which we think need to be done urgently without allowing the whole legal question to be argued out at considerable length through the courts. That would be the alternative to producing this Bill and getting it into operation fairly quickly. I agree that it is not a wholly satisfactory situation, but it is one that we have to deal with at the present time.
Earlier, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) accused the Government of not knowing what they were doing. I can assure him that we know what we are doing. However, I find it difficult to understand what he is doing with his amendments.
Amendment No. 5 would confine the exemption orders under Clause 1(1) to lands and heritages within three miles offshore. In other words, Sullom Voe and all the piers and jetties about which the right hon. Gentleman is worried would be the only kinds of lands and heritages which I would be able to prescribe by order as being exempt from rating, and oil production platforms and the rest would carry merrily on and not be covered by his definition. That is the reverse of what presumably he would like it to do. Certainly it is the absolute reverse of what Shetland County Council would like to do, and I am sure that it would not be very happy to think that its Member of Parliament was seeking to put provisions in the Bill which would have the effect of bringing into exemption from rating very considerable installations to which it attaches great importance from the rating point of view, but, apparently, allowing other things well out to sea to be subject to the possibility of rating. I am afraid that Amendment No. 5, whatever its objective, would have that very unfortunate effect, and I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman will want to press it.
As for Amendments Nos. 19 and 20, I have already dealt with the general question of our approach to the Bill, and we have put in a definition which in the circumstances of the Bill we think is the right one. The right hon. Gentleman asked what was meant by
the lowest point to which the tide ebbs at ordinary spring tides.
It means what it says. These are matters of fact. I see no difficulty in using that formulation. But to take out the words
estuary, arm of the sea and the waters of any channel, creek, bay or river",
as Amendment No. 19 would do—and it is reinforced by Amendment No. 20—would mean again excluding the two bridges, because they bridge estuarial waters. Therefore, these amendments, for whatever reason they are tabled, would have the effect of preventing the exemption for the Forth and Tay road bridges which I am sure the House as a whole wants them to have.
For those reasons I cannot recommend the Committee to accept any of these amendments.

Amendment negatived.

Sir John Gilmour: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 9, at end add
'and all bridges over estuarial tidal waters shall be automatically exempt without the need for an order by the Secretary of State'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this we may discuss Amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 9, at end insert—
'In this subsection "lands and heritages" include the Tay and Forth road bridges'.

Sir J. Gilmour: To some extent, the Secretary of State has alluded already to the spirit of this amendment. However, I would take him up on one matter. He said that Parliament's view was sacrosanct in terms of what was and what was not rated. But, it will be within the discretion of the Secretary of State to make an order. We in Parliament will have no power to force him to make an order. It means that the power lies with the Secretary of State and not with Parliament.
I seek to ensure that these two bridges in particular are taken out of being rated without the need for the Secretary of State to make an order. It may be that I have tabled my amendment in the wrong way to achieve this. If I have, I do not know whether on Report it will be possible to move a manuscript amendment to do it in another way. For example, would it be possible to say that, notwithstanding the provisions of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, the provision to take these two bridges out of rating in the Acts under which they were built shall still stand?
All I seek to do is to ensure that the two bridges are not eligible for valuation at the whim of the Secretary of State. This should be laid down in an Act of Parliament which we pass so that there can be no doubt about the fact that they have been exempted.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: This matter has been discussed before, and I have tabled an amendment dealing specifically with this issue of the Tay and Forth road bridges. I have my doubts still about the definition of that word "partly". I believe that on balance the courts will interpret it, but there is still some doubt about it.
The Secretary of State has said quite specifically that the Tay and Forth road bridges will be excluded from rating, and he has had the support of the House in that. If it is his intention to exclude these two bridges and if, under the terms of the Bill, he is required to promote an order to that effect, would it not save time and effort if the bridges were included in this Bill, either by the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Fife (Sir J. Gilmour) or by specific mention of them. If this were the case, that would be the end of the matter.
In the previous local government legislation these two bridges were excluded from valuation, and it was only by an oversight on the part of the previous Administration that they became eligible for inclusion. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to this point.

Mr. McElhone: I must say straight away that I recommend that the Committee resist these amendments.
Amendment No. 6 would confer exemption on all bridges over estuarial tidal waters. The amendment of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) would extend the definition to "land or heritages" just to include the Tay and Forth road bridges. It is difficult to imagine a road bridge which is not land or heritage. I do not wish to start a debate on the word "partly". No doubt the hon. Member, being a lawyer, could speak for many hours on the definition, and at the end of the day we would still disagree.
The Government have said that the power to exempt by order will be used to extend exemption of rating to the Tay and Forth road bridges. This was unintentionally left out of legislation by the Conservatives in the process of the reorganisation of local government, and it shows that the previous Administration was certainly not infallible.
We are glad that this exemption by order process exists, because if we did not exempt these bridges they would probably double their tolls, and nobody wants that. I hope that hon. Members will accept that it is a very useful purpose to ensure that we contain any increase in toll charges.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: In referring to my amendment the Minister said that

lands and heritages included road bridges. I take that point. However, I doubt very much whether a whole series of Tay and Forth road bridges will be built as a result of my amendment. The amendment simply makes it clear that these two bridges will be included for the purposes of the Bill.

Mr. McElhone: I am glad that the hon. Member understands the position. There is a strong measure of agreement between us. The concern expressed by the hon. Member has been met, even if it is not in the way in which he wants it. But one of the main purposes of the Bill is to ensure that no rates are charged on the Tay and Forth road bridges, and I can certainly give that assurance.

Sir J. Gilmour: I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that he will lay the orders as soon as the Bill gets Royal Assent. If there were to be a change of Government we might have a Secretary of State who did not wish to lay the orders. Can we be certain that as soon as Royal Assent has been given the Secretary of State will lay the order forthwith?

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I can assure my hon. Friend that any Conservative Government would respond to all his arguments with even greater sympathy than the present Government.
My hon. Friend has put forward an amendment to exempt the bridges which would in effect exempt all bridges over estuarial tidal waters without the need for orders, to save administration time, and the time of the House. Is he aware of any estuarial tidal water bridges which are rated?
The Minister wrote to me and said that subjects which extended beyond low water mark, such as coal mines, and estuarial bridges, had been held by the courts to be rateable. Therefore, it seems that some estuarial bridges are rateable.
Would the Minister give me some idea which estuarial bridges are rated in Scotland because that would help us to decide what to do with this amendment?

Mr. McElhone: I do not have that information at the moment. Personally, I am not aware of any bridges, apart from those that we are discussing. I assure the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) that there is no danger that we


shall see a change in Government in the near future. I give an assurance that my hon. Friend will try to lay the order as soon as practicable, although there are still some consultations to be undertaken.

Sir J. Gilmour: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 1, line 19, at end insert—
'In making any such order the Secretary of State shall have regard to the nature and extent of the services provided by local authorities to the owners, occupiers or users of the lands and heritages concerned.'.
Because of the amounts of taxation on the oil companies it would be wrong to charge them with rates. However, we must bear in mind that certain local authorities have considerable extra expenditure because of the existence of oilfields, rigs and platforms off their shores. Often they have to provide extra services, such as police, and a number of regions and districts have complained that they are thereby involved in extra expenditure.
Have the Government considered making some compensation available to these local authorities for the extra expenditure for which they get no return in rates? Once this Bill is law, the Secretary of State can exempt all these offshore structures entirely from rates. This amounts to extra expenditure for local authorities with no possibility of rating return.
I feel that it is rather unfair on the local authority especially at this time when money is short.

Mr. Millan: I can assure the hon. Member that the problem is recognised and that there is special provision in the rate support grant for oil-related expenditure beyond that which an authority would normally have been given to cover services. This is taken into account by a special grant which is part of the rate support grant. We therefore recognise that certain authorities have borne expenditure burdens because of oil developments, and they have been compensated accordingly. The authorities include Shetland, the Grampian Region and a number of others.
However, we must be careful on this matter. I stress that it was the present

Government, not the previous one, who introduced this provision. If we were to do too much for these authorities it would be unfair to authorities elsewhere in Scotland. Although oil activity brings burdens it also brings rewards, including additional rateable values for the area concerned.
There is also the question how the rate support grant is calculated in terms of the needs element and the resources element. I take the view that, combined with the special arrangements that I have mentioned, we take adequate account of the problems of local authorities involved with oil development. For that reason I hope that the hon. Member will be willing to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Grimond: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 19, at end add—
'The Secretary of State shall in any case consult with the local authorities affected if they so desire'.
I tabled the amendment because of the curious wording of subsection (6). Under that subsection the Secretary of State is compelled to consult the associations of local authorities or persons who appear to him to be concerned. But consultation with any single local authority is left to his discretion, and he need consult only if he thinks it desirable.
I cannot understand that. I should have thought that it was essential for him to consult the particular local authority concerned, and I should like it written into the Bill, as the amendment suggests, that he would have to do that if the local authority so requested. As I understand it, the drafting of the Bill compels him to consult associations of local authorities or persons who appear to him concerned. But then there is the class of authority which he may think it desirable to consult, and it is in that class that the particular local authorities fall.

Mr. McElhone: I think that I can give the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) the assurance that he seeks. I can see the point that he is attempting to make. This subsection is well precedented.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the position of a single local authority. In practice we now deal with large authorities such as the regional authorities, and we have regular consultation with them on such matters as social work and education. Consultations with an individual local authority can relate to existing assessments of the authority on, for example, the Forth and Tay bridges and the Auk, Argyll and Forties oilfields. In such a case we would consult the separate authority.
There may be instances which involve a joint local authority interest. The right hon. Gentleman is concerned to ensure that local authorities, whether individually or collectively, can have that consultation with the Secretary of State on matters concerning the Bill and their jurisdiction. I think that I can give that assurance.

Mr. Grimond: In view of the assurance that the Secretary of State would always consult separately with local authorities, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 23, leave out subsection (8).
I hope that the Secretary of State will explain this unusual subsection. It appears to say that even if one of the orders was hybrid or private, it should be regarded as a Public Bill, irrespective of the circumstances. The House has had much discussion on the subject of hybrid legislation this year. The procedures for hybrid or Private Bills are different from those for Public Bills. If one individual company or group is singled out for special parliamentary attention, it has the right to go before a Private Bill Committee where its case is presented and argued and witnesses are called.
It was clear from the Secretary of State's introduction of the Bill that it is more than possible that some of the orders made under the Bill will be private or hybrid in the sense that individual oilfields or oil rigs or areas will be selected while others may not be. Does subsection (8) mean that even if an order is private or hybrid it should be regarded as public and treated as a Private Bill?
Are there precedents for this arrangement? The subsection appears horrifying, but it may have been used a hundred times before and therefore may not be a matter of concern. Does the working of the subsection mean that such orders cannot go to Private Bill Committees? The Bill says
On the expiry of 28 days from the laying of the draft … the order shall proceed in that House, whether or not it has been referred to a Committee under Standing Orders … relating to Private Bills, as if its provisions would require to be enacted by Public Bill.
Does that mean that these orders may in no circumstances go to a Private Bill Committee, or is it that they may go for 28 days and then move forward in a different category? The clause appears most unusual and seems to apply the same provision that was applied to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. There may be a perfectly good explanation for the provision, and that may remove my fears.

Mr. Millan: This rather obscure wording has no implication for the House of Commons. It deals with the procedures in the House of Lords. The wording is precedented and it invokes a particular procedure in the other place. It is of fairly recent origin and is provided for, for example, in Section 1(7) of the Offshore Petroleum Development (Scotland) Act 1975. It is strictly a House of Lords procedure which does not affect the House of Commons. I understand that when the other place discussed this matter it was perfectly agreeable to the procedure applying there. I hope that that will set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest.
In the House of Lords the instrument can be a hybrid instrument even under a Public Bill of this sort. I understand that there is no such thing as a hybrid instrument in that sense in the House of Commons. It is a purely House of Lords concept which involves the characteristic that a private interest is affected by an order in a manner different from the private interests of other persons or bodies of the same category or class. When that happens in another place there are procedures similar to those for Private Bills. They include provision for petitions and the rest.
There is also an accelerated procedure in another place and this subsection


brings in that procedure and provides a reasonable period of 28 days for hearing private interests. Thereafter, the order proceeds as though it were not hybrid.
It is a new procedure which has not been much used, but this is a standard formula which will have to be used in legislation which attracts that procedure. There is nothing in the least bit sinister about it and nothing which affects the interests of this House. It is a rather obscure matter to us and it is rather obscurely drawn in the legislation.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure that we have all learned a great deal. The problem could have been resolved if reference had been made to the House of Lords instead of to a House of Parliament. That gave the impression that it could be either.
The Minister's explanation was interesting and reasonable and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 2, line 36, at end add:
'(11) Notwithstanding the provisions of the above subsections the Secretary of State shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, make an order to delete from valuation rolls all lands and heritages which fall under the criteria of section 1() above and which relate to fish farming'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this we may take New Clause 1—Rating of marine fish farming.

Mr. Taylor: The amendment relates to fish farming and I hope that even if the Government cannot accept the amendment or the new clause, they will be able to make concessions and give an indication of future policy.
There is considerable grievance among fish farmers who feel that the industry is not treated with the same consideration as is given to agriculture generally. We would be mistaken if we did not appreciate the potential of this industry and the work being done.
There is quite a substantial industry, particularly in Scotland, in rainbow trout and brown trout. At the expensive lunches of which my hon. Friends have

experience, though I have not, they have probably eaten rainbow trout bred under these unusual conditions. It is becoming a major industry. About 900 tons of rainbow trout were fish farmed in Scotland last year.
There have been experiments, including some in Norway, in the fish farming of salmon. Several large firms have taken an interest with Unilever starting the process in Lochailort. It is expected that production of fish farmed salmon might increase to 200 tons a year. However, all these are marginal activities from which little profit is made because of the considerable rates burden on the industry. I understand that progress is also being made with oysters and mussels.
Bearing in mind the special problems facing our fishing industry and the possibility that we might not get an agreement on our inshore limits, our housewives and fishermen will find themselves in a difficult situation. If there is the prospect of ever-rising prices, sea fish farming will become an industry with potential. However, if we wish to build up such an industry, we must realise that the rates involved are substantial and that it is wrong to draw a distinction between farming at sea and other agriculture.
Some people may think that there is not much involved here. I assumed that until I started to look into the subject. I assumed that a wall could be put across a fjord to keep the fish in, but I have been told by experts that this could not be done because of salinity problems and water exchange difficulties. That is why most fish farming involves floating cages and static, fenced-off enclosures, both of which attract considerable rate burdens which are preventing the further development of the industry. There is no doubt of the great scope in sea fish farming. I am told that the only sea fish currently farmed in this way are Dover sole and turbot, because they are expensive fish.
However, if we have continued problems with the shortage of fish and overfishing—we already have indications that we might not be successful in getting the kind of agreement on limits which all my hon. Friends would want—fish farming and sea fish farming could become growth industries and safeguard some of


our potential food supplies. There is every reason for treating fish farming in the same way as agriculture.
I understand that we give concessions on agricultural buildings and land but not on the heritages of fish farming. As a general matter of policy, will the Government give an indication that they accept the potential of the industry and that it will be treated in the same way as agriculture generally? Will the Government provide this assistance to help an important industry to expand in the interests of housewives and everyone else?

Sir John Gilmour: The new clause deals mainly with marine fish farming because I felt that it was the only type which could be included within the title of the Bill. However, what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) said applies to marine farming and fish farming. Surely we can make a start in this area? Fish farmers are as much farmers as those who farm the land.
In the past 20 or 30 years there have been enormous changes in the techniques involved in livestock farming, particularly with poultry and pigs. Experiments with intensive beef production have also shown what can be done. We need to remove any rating burdens on the same type of activity which can produce food from the sea. Breeding and hatching techniques and disease control are on similar lines to those practised on land.
We have all the facilities. Our coastline, particularly around Scotland, is particularly suited to the development of fish farming. It is remarkable that a country such as Japan produces almost 1 million tons of farmed fish a year and has a five-year plan for a big expansion. The European output is 750,000 tons a year, mostly from Spain and France, with some from Italy and Germany. We are net importers of fish and fish products. Last year we imported £80 million worth of fish products, salmon and trout, even though we are big salmon producers and have built up salmon fisheries in the West Coast of Scotland, we still imported £42 million worth of the fish last year.
Bearing in mind the value of the pound, our balance of payments troubles and our need to become as self-sufficient as possible in food, we should miss no

opportunity to take a step forward by increasing fish farming.
As an island we have been able to keep ourselves free from endemic diseases such as foot and mouth in cattle. We would be able to do the same with fish farming. The increased number of job opportunities in certain areas is another good reason, in the present unemployment situation, to expand fish farming.
I am told that fish is a more efficient converter than animals. We do not need to keep fish warm. Unlike pigs and cattle they can exist happily in extremely cold conditions and are therefore more efficient producers of food than some other animals we farm. These arguments and many more were rehearsed in a debate on another subject, and at that time the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food admitted that our law on the rating of fish farming was vague and indeterminate. I hope that we shall receive an assurance from the Under-Secretary of State that he will look with favour on this proposition.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. McElhone: I must say at the outset that the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) has put forward a strong argument for the derating of fish farms, as did the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). They will be aware that the argument has continued for a number of years.
I can remember the argument being raised when we were discussing the 1971 rating legislation. On that occasion amendments were moved in both Houses in the hope of derating buildings used by fish farmers. They were rejected as was a similar amendment when we discussed the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. That was because the analogy with agriculture was not accepted.
Perhaps hon. Members will know that the matter was decided in the Lands Valuation Appeal Court. It was decided in Wallace v. Assessor for the joint county of Perth and Kinross that fish are not livestock within the meaning of the Act. In the past the argument has been based on the assertion that fish farming is analogous with agriculture, but that was not accepted in the courts.
I must also be consistent and say that it is not the intention of the Government


to afford exemption from rates to marine fish farmers or any other fish farmers. We do not think it would be proper to alter valuation and rating law when the whole area of local government finance is under review following the Layfield Committee's report. To derate fish farms alone would create an anomaly within the industry.
I hope that I have not been unkind to the hon. Member for Cathcart, who today has been a model of calmness in putting forward a reasonable case on behalf of the Opposition. However, I should draw to his attention the debate on Second Reading and to column 105 of Hansard, where he expressed, as he has done so often in the past, his concern for ratepayers not only in the Glasgow seat that he represents but in Scotland generally. He has been consistent in his defence of ratepayers and it is rather surprising that he should put his name to an amendment which would relieve marine fish farmers and other fish farmers from rates. He must realise that the cost of relieving anyone from the rate burden must fall on the rest of the community in the form of added rates or taxes. If he is consistent in his views—I am sure that he always wants to be—I am sure that he will support the Government when we say that we cannot accept the two amendments to derate marine or other fish farms.

Sir John Gilmour: We have heard a disappointing and short-sighted reply. The point that the Minister has entirely failed to grasp is that if we expand the production of fish we shall build up ancillary industries, which will pay rates. The contribution that would be made to the Exchequer by the distribution of the fish and the money that would be saved in not paying unemployment benefit to those in rural areas would far outweigh the loss of money from the ratepayer.
If the hon. Gentleman were to follow his argument through he would be advocating the rerating of agriculture. I trust that he will not be doing that. He has made a most unsatisfactory answer that is unacceptable.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour), I am disappointed by the

Minister's reply, which showed that he has no real appreciation of the importance of agriculture and fishing. He also showed a singular lack of sympathy with those who try to battle against all the problems of running a fish farm as well as having to cope with the extra problem of rates. This is a major issue and the debate will have to continue. I am sure that my hon. Friend and I will take part in it.
The Minister made some rather nasty comments about my views on rates and the effect of the amendment on ratepayers in Cathcart and Queen's Park. The hon. Gentleman may like to know that, apart from wanting to relieve some people of the rates burden, my party is committed to the abolition of domestic rates. It is committed to replacing them with a much fairer form of taxation.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that if he were to pursue general Conservative policies, which are fair to all, this and many other problems would not arise. This is a debate that must continue for that reason. As the Chamber is rather empty, perhaps it would be right not to vote on the issue at this stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 2

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTION 1

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 3, line 13, after 'possible', insert:
'and not later than six months'.
In Clause 2 it is stated that the Secretary of State may give a direction to an assessor not to put something in the valuation rôle. Subsection (3) states:
The Secretary of State shall, as soon as possible after giving a direction … inform the assessor or, as the case may be, the Assessor of Public Undertakings (Scotland) whether or not he intends to make an order under section 1 of this Act; and if he does not so intend, he shall revoke the direction.
It seems that subsection (1) is an early warning system. It would be unfair to the assessor if there were to be a long delay between the warning by the Secretary of State, saying "Do not put something into the valuation roll" and a


decision being arrived at by the Secretary of State. Surely a minimum time of six months is reasonable. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept this suggestion.

Mr. Millan: I accept the sense of the amendment, that we shall lay these orders as soon as possible, but I prefer not to be tied to a particular period. A process of consultation is involved under Clause 1. I have to go through that process with the local authorities concerned. If the hon. Gentleman looks at Clause 1(2) he will see a reference to orders that have to be made within nine months of the passing of the Act. I understand that the period was extended in another place to nine months to allow the necessary consultations to take place before anything is done immediately following the passing of the Bill.
After I get through the consultations—I hope that they need not take a great deal of time—I shall produce the orders as soon as possible. In the cases that come within Clause 2 we are dealing with events that may happen in future. I am not sure what the circumstances would then be, and I should certainly have to go through the process of consultation. I might find six months to be an inconvenience or hardship to the local authorities rather than to me if I were tied in that way.
I should prefer to leave matters as they are formulated—namely, "as soon as possible". I hope that in practice I shall be able to proceed within a period a good deal shorter than six months, but I should like to have that flexibility.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 3, line 18, at end add—
'(4) The Secretary of State shall, at least once each year, send to each assessor a statement setting out the directions he has given under subsection (1) above and of the orders which he has made under section 1 above'.
The basis of the amendment is that if the Secretary of State is making orders or issuing advice to individual assessors over a period it would be unfortunate if time were to be wasted because one

assessor did not know about the advice or orders being given by the Secretary of State to another. The idea is to try to ensure that all decisions of the Secretary of State in this regard will be circulated to all assessors.
It may be that there is already some procedure for doing this of which I am not aware. If the Secretary of State can give us an assurance that his advice under Clause 2(1) will be made available to all assessors so that they will have general guidance on Scottish Office policy, and the Secretary of State's policy, that will be adequate for the purpose of the amendment.

Mr. McElhone: The purpose and effect of the amendment would be to cause the Secretary of State to send to assessors annually a statement of orders and directions made under the Bill. Assessors keep informed as to the state of the law and it is the long-standing practice of the Scottish Office to call attention to legislative changes. It is intended that there should be an order covering petroleum installations and public toll bridges as soon as possible after powers are enacted. Thereafter the question of a direction under Clause 2 or an order under Clause 1 will arise in unforeseeable circumstances. It would be pointless and administratively extravagant to set up procedures calling for annual repetition of unchanged information. If directions are given or orders made the persons concerned will be made aware of the fact clearly and promptly.
Although the hon. Member put down the amendment with good intentions, I can tell him that the Assessors' Association is of the opinion that the suggested provision is unnecessary. I know that the hon. Member will take the advice from that rather august body.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I certainly shall. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I had given forewarning to the Minister of my intention to participate in the debate on the Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill", by putting down an amendment. I have some worries about the terms of the clause.
It seems that the procedure which the clause envisages could strike at the independent status of an assessor, whose job so far has been to interpret the law as laid down in Acts of Parliament, to put entries into valuation rolls and then subsequently to go through the process of appeal, if an appeal is marked, leading finally to the Lands Valuation Appeal Court deciding whether a particular subject should enter a valuation roll and, if it should enter, at what particular value.
The clause seeks to give to the Secretary of State certain holding powers. In other words, he is enabled to make a direction to assessors indicating that a certain subject which the assessor feels should be valued should not be placed on the roll. It concerns a subject which the Secretary of State had previously not considered worth excluding because it had not been brought within his ken. If he had considered that it was worth including it would presumably have been contained in an order which would have been made under Clause 1.
If, as the Secretary of State said earlier, this is a case in which the orders are made and approved by Parliament, there would, perhaps, be less objection to it. In this instance we have a situation in which—I am not talking personally about the right hon. Gentleman—a Secretary of State is given power to issue an administrative edict to a local authority official not to carry out a duty which otherwise he might have felt obliged to undertake, in other words, to enter into a roll a subject which, in his opinion as a qualified assessor and independent individual, should have been so entered.
The Secretary of State has to follow through the procedure subsequently by bringing an order before Parliament under the affirmative procedure, but it means that for a time, for administrative convenience, the law can be set aside. If a direction is subsequently not approved by Parliament after it has considered the order a local authority could be deprived of rateable value and of valuable income in these days of cut-backs in public expenditure and, as a consequence, the authority will lose.
If Parliament were consulted right at the outset and if the local authority were to lose income because of the directive of

Parliament, that would be part of the democratic system, and although there may be criticism by a local authority about losing income, certainly it could have no fundamental objection. However, for six or nine months, or whatever it is, a local authority may be deprived of income by direction of the Secretary of State through an instruction to an assessor.
Therefore, the clause tends to give certain very powerful strengths to the Secretary of State to take independent action. I am not so sure whether Parliament should give those powers to any Minister. Are there any precedents which have been employed in the past to give such powers of an administrative nature before Parliament has had a chance to implement any statutory powers that it may have?
8.15 p.m.
My second question is a follow-through on what type of subject might be excluded under the provisions of Clause 1 which may occasion the Minister to take emergency action under the holding powers of Clause 2. There was a discussion earlier about submarine pipelines. These subjects can be partly under the sea and partly on land and would not be treated as rateable. Presumably, following that through, the pipeline concerned would be non-rateable as a single subject from the point at which it emerges from the water until presumably it reaches some other fixture which is rateable.
Are processing plants, gas separation plants and pumping stations considered to be separate from the pipeline? Might it mean, therefore, that these will be rateable, so that under the Bill we are concerned only with exemption of pipelines and not the other items of plant to which I have referred?
It seems that these holding powers are not really necessary if in future we have a Scottish Assembly with adequate time for legislation and which would be able to receive at a very early date—under an affirmative procedure which still has to be laid down, presumably—an order under Clause 1 enabling a full parliamentary approval to be given to a decision whether a particular subject should be exempted from the provisions of valuation for rating.

Mr. Peter Doig: Surely it is right that the Secretary of State should have this reserve power as if some assessor decides to rate the Tay road bridge, for example, he goes to a great deal of expense and trouble in order to ensure that the assessment is reasonable. When one is doing something new in this way, it involves a great deal of expenditure. Further than that, however, as soon as one assessor decides to do this, every other assessor who has a similar construction anywhere in his area will also proceed to spend a great deal of public money in finding out what value should be placed upon it.
This is a sheer waste of time and money if the ultimate intention of the Government is not to allow assessors to rate such subjects. It would be a shocking waste of ratepayers' money for the Secretary of State not to have the power to stop that money from being wasted. It is right that he should have this power and should use it.
In the past many subjects have been rated that should never have been rated. That is now fairly common knowledge. In my own constituency an assessor in Dundee decided to rate a public street because it happened to be used as a bus centre. The assessor, who was probably within his rights, wanted to contest the case and engaged counsel at the ratepayers' expense. The Town Clerk said that if the assessor engaged counsel, he required counsel to put the other side. Two departments of the same authority each spent a considerable sum on an inquiry, paying the expenses of both sides. At the end of the day the money went from one corporation department to another. If the Secretary of State can prevent that sort of occurrence, he should have the power to do so, and should use it.

Sir John Gilmour: I am slightly worried about the provision in Clause 2, line 11, which reads:
unless and until the Secretary of State revokes the direction given".
I raised earlier with the Secretary of State the question of the Forth and Tay Bridges being put by error into the risk of rating. We must make certain that they are taken out from that risk permanently. According to the wording of Clause 2, a future Secretary of State

could revoke the order and again bring the two bridges into rating. As we are to go straight on Report and do not have time to consider and put down other amendments, will the Minister say whether wording can be incorporated in the Bill to make it impossible for the order relating to the two bridges to be revoked?

Mr. Millan: The question raised by the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) arises not under Clause 2 but under the powers to vary or revoke an order by a subsequent order under Clause 1(9). I am glad to say that we have passed that clause, so I cannot answer that question.
I agree with the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) that Clause 2 contains a novel power and for that reason we considered carefully whether to include it in the Bill. We did so for reasons so graphically explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig).
If the intention is to provide for an exemption order, it is useful to have power to prevent unnecessary and expensive work from being undertaken before the order comes into operation. Clause 2 provides a holding power for the Secretary of State. Admittedly, it means that the Secretary of State, by administrative edict, can temporarily set aside the duty of an assessor.
There may be circumstances in which the assessor would find that irksome, but there may also be circumstances in which the assessor is under pressure to put something into the valuation roll because a ratepayer asks him why he has not fulfilled his statutory duty to rate a certain installation. It may be convenient for the assessor, when he knows that the Secretary of State is considering an exemption order, to have a direction from the Secretary of State which prevents him from having to carry out work which he knows will almost certainly be unnecessary.
The provision can work both ways, but however it works it is concerned with avoiding unnecessary public expenditure when an exemption order is on the way. It is a balanced argument. It could be argued that the power should not be given out of respect for the purity of the


valuation system but, looking at it hi practical terms and remembering that we shall often be dealing with extremely complicated valuation points on which a great deal of money and effort might be expended, we think on balance that it is better to have the clause in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I know that many hon. Members and others who are watching the proceedings are anxious to get on to the subject of the extension of drinking facilities in Scotland. Although I should like to hold up that measure, it would be wrong of me to do so by means of delaying the Third Reading of this Bill.
I think we would all agree with the principle of the Bill, because we accept that the oil industry has had about as much as it can take from the Government with the substantial petroleum levy, corporation tax and the threat of participation. The burdens on North Sea oil have held back development which could have been a means of providing jobs in Scotland. If, in addition to all those burdens, there were to be a rating burden, it would make life impossible for the industry.
During the Second Reading debate I asked the Under-Secretary of State a question which he was unable to answer. He said that he thought that the Bill was a good Bill because it would enable North Sea oil platforms and so on to be exempt from rates. I asked whether he was quite sure that a Scottish Assembly, if established, would not be able to frustrate his intention. The Government did not clarify that issue at the time and I should like the Minister to make a statement on it during this debate.
Paragraph 69 of the White Paper "Our Changing Democracy", which deals with devolution, reads as follows:

Where a United Kingdom Act in a devolved field lays down, in order to control expenditure, that delegated legislation shall be made jointly by two or more Ministers … the power will pass simply to the Scottish Executive. Where a United Kingdom Act confers a power exercisable by Order in Council, that power will be exercisable by Order of the Scottish Executive.
Paragraph 67 is in the following terms:
The Scottish Executive will be able to make delegated legislation under enabling powers contained either in Assembly Acts or in United Kingdom Acts still in force in the devolved fields.
What are the devolved fields? According to the White Paper the devolved fields exclude the creation of new United Kingdom taxes but include the application of the rating system. Perhaps there is a danger that if a Scottish Assembly, when established, were to refuse to make such orders, or were to revoke them once made, a situation could arise in which the oilfields would not be derated or be freed from rates as the Government intend.
Because the House lacked information on these matters, I tabled a Question to the Secretary of State for Scotland on 1st November. The answer I received, which was somewhat unusual, was as follows:
The broad purpose of the Valuation and Rating (Exempted Classes) (Scotland) Bill is to ensure that certain installations should be subject only to national taxation and not also to local rating. Under the Government's devolution proposals, national taxation is to continue to be a matter for the United Kingdom Government and, consistent with this, the powers in the Bill to allow the Secretary of State to exempt certain categories from local rating will continue to be exercised by the Secretary of State."—[Official Report, 1st November 1976; Vol. 918, c. 505.]
I wish to ask the Minister two brief questions arising out of that answer.
When he said that the purpose of the Bill was to ensure that certain installations should be subject only to national taxation and that certain categories would be exempted from local rating, did he mean that the devolution Bill will specifically provide that that category of order will not be considered by a Scottish Assembly, or is he seeking to interpret the White Paper? If he is seeking to make such an interpretation, it would be a judicial matter that would have to go before the Privy Council. It is important that we should be clear precisely what is intended.
It is strange that, after the Government have been rushing round the country extolling the virtues of their plans and the powers contained in the White Paper, their enthusiasm appears to have collapsed at the first hurdle. It seems to me that the Assembly will not even have the power to make valuation orders. Did the Written Answer to which I referred earlier cover the full rating system, and will any decision about industrial de-rating also be covered by its terms? It is important to be clear whether the Bill will be applied as the House of Commons intends.
Furthermore, was that answer an indication that the devolution Bill will prevent valuation orders from being discussed in a Scottish Assembly, if established, or will such powers be held in reserve? A clear statement must be made on this important matter. It is clearly stated in the White Paper that the Assembly will take over the order-making powers in decisions affecting the oilfields. Is there to be a change in policy? If the Government are reserving the right to do something that is inconsistent with national policy, it appears that the Assembly will not be allowed to discuss the matter or to make a decision upon it. This makes nonsense of their proposals. I hope that the Government will be able to clear up this matter.
Having said that, I must emphasise that we welcome the Bill because the oil industry has suffered from too many bad policies and burdens imposed by the present Government. A further burden might make things even more difficult for the industry.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Grimond: I hope that the Government will pay heed to the important points raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), although I suspect that the Government will reply that this is not the moment to go into arguments about the power of the Assembly. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman's remarks were important and should be borne in mind in view of the provisions of the Bill under which the Assembly will be set up.
I wish to protest about the late moment in the Session at which this Bill dealing with the important subject of rating has been introduced. If the Government regard

it as an important Bill, this is just one more example of bad management on the part of the Government which has meant overcrowded timetables in both Houses of Parliament.
I do not differ from those who say that the oil industry has had enough taxation levied upon it. However, we should be chary of depriving local authorities of a legitimate source of revenue, particularly when considering local authorities in the North of Scotland who have been short of valuable subjects.
I believe that these aims could have been achieved much more simply by excluding subjects outside certain limits—say, one, two or three miles below low water mark—rather than by undertaking this procedure which will involve the Secretary of Stale in making orders and Parliament having to consider them, with all the drawbacks that are entailed.
I urge the Secretary of State to bear in mind the expenditure which some local authorities have had to undertake on behalf of oil-related industries and to some extent oil industries. Though I am well aware that they have also got a great deal out of the companies, they have had heavy expenditure.
If the Bill is to be put into effect, it should be done with some expedition. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will set about the necessary consultations with the local authorities to allay their fears that large amounts of their rateable value may be taken from them. I attach great importance to the arrangements for consultations. If the Secretary of State is to take action, I hope that he will consult the relevant local authorities as quickly and as fully as possible.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Ian Sproat: I rise to reinforce a point which I made on Second Reading and which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) has rightly drawn to the attention of the House again tonight. I would go even further than my hon. Friend, who said that it was ridiculous that by the Bill we should take away one of the most obvious powers which a Scottish Assembly should have, if it was ever set up. Rating is exactly the sort of area of government which it would be most natural for a Scottish Assembly to have within its powers, yet


by the Bill we are taking it away. I read the Answer given to my hon. Friend, that the Government do not intend that the Assembly should have any such rights. But that will not be the end of the matter, whatever the Secretary of State may say in a few minutes.
I am astonished that the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), the Leader of the Scottish National Party, is not here, considering that he was present for Second Reading. When T said then that it might be the intention of a future Scottish Assembly to take away this right from the House of Commons, he nodded agreement. That would indeed be the first thing a Scottish Assembly would seek to do, in order to gain money for its own purposes. It would then come into direct conflict with the House of Commons.
Although we welcome the Bill in general, this is the path down which we are being led into a morass of confusion about what will be within the right of the Commons, de jure but also de facto. It is no use saying that the Bill states that we here shall have the right if the Assembly says "We don't care. We shall kick up such a fuss that you will have to give it to us." This is another indication in support of what my hon. Friend and I have been saying for so long, that any Scottish Assembly will be a guaranteed recipe for confusion and conflict. This Bill proves the case, even before we have begun to discuss the devolution Bill.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. Millan: The only person in a morass of confusion is the hon. Gentleman. An explicit answer was given on Monday in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. Sproat: I saw that.

Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not understand it. It might help if he would listen to me instead of deciding that he knows the answer before I have even spoken.
The question of what appears in the devolution Bill will have to await the

appearance of that Bill. It is true that rating as a whole will be one of the devolved subjects, but we have also made it clear that we are making a demarcation between rating and national taxation. We believe that the offshore oil installations should not be subject to local taxation, but that the profits from their operations should be subject only to national taxation. The devolution Bill will be drafted in a way which will achieve that particular result. It will of course be a matter that we shall be able to debate when we have the Bill itself but it does not affect the wording of this Bill.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Secretary of State said that rating will be devolved but not in this particular case because it does not suit the Government. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that agricultural derating would also be a devolved power? Will the powers relating to fish farming or industrial derating be devolved? Will a Scottish Assembly be able to decide to derate industry but not offshore oil? It seems strange that the Government are saying "We will allow you to exercise this power but not where this does not suit us".

Mr. Millan: I am talking only about rating so far as offshore oil installations are concerned and the division between national and local taxation. The devolution Bill will be drafted so that the responsibility with regard to taxation of offshore oil installation will remain with central Government and will not be devolved to the Assembly.
The purposes of the Bill have had a general welcome even if the particular structures adopted in the drafting gave rise to a certain amount of complaint. I think that that structure is the only one which was possible, particularly within the time scale under which we are operating. I would assure the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that I will proceed as rapidly as possible—given Royal Assent to the Bill—with the necessary consultation and with the introduction of the first orders.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Orders of the Day — LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 2

DISQUALIFICATION OF INTERESTED PERSONS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 11, at end insert:
() A member of a licensing board who holds a disqualifying interest in a company shall not take part in any proceedings before the board in which that company is an applicant or an objector, and in this subsection "disqualifying interest" means a beneficial interest in shares or stock of a close company within the meaning of section 282 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 which have a total nominal value exceeding £50 or which amount to more than one hundredth part of the nominal value of the issued share capital, or stock, as the case may be, of the company or any class of such capital or stock.

8.41 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Lords Amendment No. 1 disqualifies any member of a licensing board who is a shareholder with more than a specified minimum holding in a close company who is an applicant or objector in proceedings before that licensing board from taking part in those proceedings.
I shall not deal with the matter in detail because, obviously a potential conflict of interest is involved and the purpose of the amendment is to avoid that.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: In general I think that the Lords have acted with a great deal of irresponsibility in some of the amendments which they have passed. I find it difficult to understand this amendment and I hope that the Secretary of State can give me some guidance.
So far as I can see, it indicates that the "disqualifying interest" means a beneficial interest in the stock of a close company which has a nominal value exceeding £50. I understand that the Secretary of State is an accountant. He will know more about these things than I do. Does "nominal value" not mean the number of shares? I understand that

we could have a £1 share which stands at 3p. yet the nominal value would be £1. We could have a £1 share worth £100 and yet the nominal value would still be £1. Many of these companies have £100 as the nominal share capital although the real value of the company concerned might be considerably more. Is it fair and reasonable to talk about £50 nominal value of shares in a company when they might be worth £1 or £10,000? We know that many private businesses are drawn up under the terms of £100, £300 or £1,000 companies. To put in a nominal share value of £50 could be quite meaningless.
Would it not be better to relate this provision to the real value of the business and not the nominal share value of the company? This is important because the Bill will radically alter the economic prospects of some licensed premises. Some people say that extra hours of Sunday opening will reduce the profits of the pubs. Others, like myself, think that it will mean more dringing and therefore greater profitability. We are talking about big money and big business. Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that a nominal share value is a valid basis for disqualification when the nominal value can mean anything at all?

Mr. Millan: The matter which worries the hon. Gentleman is taken care of by the second definition. Whatever the total nominal value of the shares of the company, the second definition would bring in shareholders whose holding is more than one-hundredth of the nominal value. Therefore, whatever the real value of the company, someone with more than 1 per cent, of it would be covered. We are dealing with close companies, which are controlled by comparatively small numbers of people.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5

ARRANGEMENTS FOR DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS OF LICENSING BOARDS

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 4, line 15, leave out "to" and insert "of".

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we are to discuss Lords Amendment No. 47.

Mr. Millan: These are both drafting amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 4, line 35, leave out paragraphs (h) and (i).

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we are to discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 29 and 46.

Mr. Millan: These amendments deal with the safeguards on Sunday opening. The Bill did not originally provide for Sunday opening, because in the Government's view it was unwise against the background of concern in Scotland about misuse of alcohol to take this step as well as making the other changes to liberalise hours of opening.
The Government were defeated on that matter in Committee and were subsequently defeated on it on Report. However, on Report I moved certain amendments to provide safeguards in the procedure for applying for Sunday opening and the considerations which would be taken into account by the licensing board when considering those applications.
The question of Sunday opening has been settled so far as the House is concerned. We all have our own views about that matter. I still take the view that the House made a mistake, but that is not the issue involved here. We are dealing only with safeguards. I hope that we shall not argue the case for and against Sunday opening again, because that matter has been decided. Many of us have strong views about it. I should love to deliver a speech similar to that which I delivered on Report, but I do not think that would take us much further forward tonight.
Lords Amendment No. 3 removes certain paragraphs from Clause 5(2) relating to Sunday safeguards. The amendment by itself is comparatively minor, but the whole thing hangs together. The further Lords Amendments Nos. 29 and 46 have the effect of removing a reference to Schedule 4 from Clause 53 on permitted

hours and of removing the schedule. The effect of agreeing to those amendments, against my advice, would be that there would be automatic Sunday opening of all 4,000 public houses in Scotland as soon as an order was made to bring the relevant provisions of Clause 53 into operation.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that this would not mean the automatic opening of all public houses? It is, after all, an option for public houses to open on Sunday.

Mr. Millan: Strictly speaking, it is an option to open from Monday to Saturday as well. There is nothing special about Sunday from that point of view. If my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) wants to be pedantic about it, I should say that it would enable all public houses to open immediately on Sunday as soon as the clause was brought into operation. I take the view that that would be highly undesirable.
The purpose of Part I of Schedule 4, which has been eliminated by the Lords, is to provide a procedure under which applications for Sunday opening are made to licensing boards which have the power to refuse them on the ground that the opening and use of the premises on a Sunday would cause undue disturbance or public nuisance in the locality. Part II of Schedule 4 gives a board power to restrict opening hours on Sunday if it is satisfied that the use of the premises is the cause of undue disturbance or public nuisance.
In addition to the motion that I am moving to disagree with the Lords, I am proposing, on a separate paper, to move Amendments Nos. 4 to 9 to the schedule as it left this place. Those amendments have two main purposes. They are to apply to applications for Sunday opening the relevant procedural requirements applicable to applications for licences and to provide for the currency of permission for Sunday opening to be of the same duration as the licence to which it relates.
The procedural requirements which it seems desirable to apply to applications for Sunday opening are the display of a notice at the premises concerned intimating the application for at least 21 days


before the meeting of the licensing board and the giving of written notice of the application at least three weeks before the board meeting to every occupier of premises in the same building as the licensed premises. As the Government believe that the opening of public houses on Sundays could greatly affect neighbouring owners or occupiers, we consider it right to ensure that they are given adequate notice of the possible development. This would be achieved by the addition of the new paragraph 4A contained in Amendment No. 4 which has the effect of applying the relevant procedural requirements in Clause 10. We wish to ensure that applications for renewal of a public house or refreshment licence state whether the licence holder is applying for Sunday opening. New paragraph 11A, contained in Amendment No. 6, would make suitable provision.
In terms of Part I of Schedule 4, as originally drafted, an application for Sunday opening once granted by a licensing board has no limit of time, except that imposed during the currency of a suspension order under Clause 31. It seems sensible and right that the grant of Sunday opening should last for the period of the relevant licence and that it should then require to be renewed when renewal of the licence is sought. The proposed new paragraphs 12A to 12D contained in Amendment No. 9 will have the effect of tying the grant of Sunday opening to the currency of the relevant licence, taking into account the provision for appeals. The remaining amendments to Schedule 4 are essentially drafting amendments taking account of the main changes which I have outlined.
I recommend the retention of Schedule 4. Therefore, I have explained the amendments that I propose to move to the schedule so that hon. Members will be absolutely clear about what we are doing here.
I hope it will be accepted by the House that these amendments, strengthening Schedule 4, do so in a very modest and sensible way. It is nonsense to suggest that they add massive restrictions to the schedule. These are, in fact, very sensible and necessary provisions.
As to the general arguments concerning safeguards, I shall not go through them in the detail that we had on Report. The safeguards in the Bill as it left this

place were entered without a Division. There was a general acceptance, both by those who were in favour of Sunday opening and those who were against Sunday opening, that if Sunday opening were to be permitted in Scotland it would be necessary to write certain safeguards into the Bill—in particular the safeguard of an application under Schedule 4 concerning the rights of people living in the vicinity, and so on. That was well accepted, and I am not aware that the circumstances in which we made that decision have changed in any way since the matter was very fully discussed in this House. I explained at the Report stage what the Government had in mind.
Inasmuch as there has been a change in the situation, it is a change relating to Sunday opening, in the sense that since Report we have seen a number of further statistics, reports and so on which give even more information than we had in the past as to the extent of the problem of alcoholic misuse in Scotland. But this would be an argument for strengthening and not for weakening the provisions in the Bill.
It would be a profound mistake, and very much against the sense of the debate that we had on Report, if we were now to consider, as the House of Lords ask us to do, the elimination of these safeguards—and especially the safeguards in Schedule 4.
9.0 p.m.
At earlier stages, many hon. Members described very graphically the problem which some of their constituents had already because of noise, inconvenience and sometimes even rowdiness from public houses open on six days of the week, and they took the view that for those public houses to be open on seven days would cause a qualitative change in the inconvenience to their constituents which they would find intolerable. The safeguards which we put in the Bill related safely to inconvenience. They were not related specifically to the standards of the licensed premises themselves, because I accepted that standards about licensed premises generally should apply to seven days of the week.
But there is a particular sense in regard to noise, inconvenience and the rest in which the addition of opening on a seventh day has particular relevance,


and I think strongly that it should be possible for local residents and other objectors to have these matters argued out at the licensing board. The board at the end of the day, of course, does not need to accept the representations. It is free to make its decisions on the facts and arguments presented to it. But to say that it should not even be possible for people living in the locality of public houses at present open for six days to make representations about opening on Sundays, as the Lords suggest, would cause legitimate offence and possibly considerable hardship to many of our constituents.
Therefore, for these reasons, without going over the matter again in detail, since we have debated the matter extensively before, I ask the House to disagree with the Lords in their amendments. When we come to the appropriate point, I shall ask the House to accept the amendments that I am suggesting to Schedule 4 of the Bill as it left this place.

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: Earlier today, we considered Scottish education and went on to consider Scottish rating. Now we have moved to Scottish drinking and that is to be followed by Scottish sex. For once, the Government seem to have their priorities right, even if we disagree about the merits of the arguments.
The Secretary of State gave his reasons clearly for believing that the other House erred in changing the Bill and removing the safeguards which the Government wished to insert in this legislation. In doing so, he made it clear that his personal position remains, as ever, opposed to the principle of Sunday opening. I start from an opposite position. I proposed the amendment in Committee to allow Sunday opening, and it was carried.
Starting from the opposite end to the Secretary of State, nevertheless, I come to the same conclusion. There is a strong case for allowing the safeguards which were inserted by this House on Report to remain in the Bill. I stress that I speak for myself. This is not a matter on which parties as such have views. Some of my hon. Friends will disagree with me, and some Government supporters will disagree with the Secretary of State. But I feel that the circumstances that we are

considering justify safeguards of the type that the Government have indicated.
I read with interest the debate in the other House when this matter was considered and when the noble Lord, Lord Guest, spearheaded the campaign to remove these controls from the Bill. In the course of his speech, the noble Lord said:
Can it"—
meaning Scotland—
not be trusted with the same opening hours on a Sunday as in England? I have said before in this House that Scotland is being treated like a child who is given a sweet and then is told, 'You cannot eat it unless you behave yourself'."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28th October 1976; Vol. 376, c. 649.]
I have heard this type of argument used before, but I do not believe it is relevant to the matter to be determined by the House. I do not think that it is right, either, to say that the matter should be left out because England has certain licensing laws and that, if England does, Scotland automatically should have the same. Equally, there is no case for slavishly departing from the English pattern simply because the English have it in that way. We must consider these matters on their merits.
Are there good arguments in favour of safeguards for Sunday opening now that the House has agreed on the principle itself? In deciding that question we cannot overlook the fact that Scotland does have a very different tradition from England and Wales. In England, particularly the question of Sunday opening is generally accepted, and has been so for many years. It does not arouse great passion or controversy, and it is something which is accepted by the whole population as being natural. I look forward to the time when there is a similar approach in Scotland.
Having said that, however, we cannot overlook the simple fact that the decision of this House to allow Sunday opening, while greeted with approval by the majority of Scots, was strongly resented by a significant minority of the population. It still arouses great emotion, not just from the Free Churches and one or two sectarian organisations but from large numbers of ordinary people who feel very strongly, and it is right that their views should be taken into account.
By accepting that the principle that different opening hours on Sunday is not in dispute at this stage, the House has accepted that different circumstances can and should be applied to Sunday as compared with other times of the week. This is a matter which allows for special safeguards. When considering what safeguards are justifiable or acceptable we must consider that the legislation applies to the whole of Scotland, and not just to urban or rural areas. It affects the whole population, and not just people who live above or next door to public houses.
If we could have differential legislation, and pubs could open whenever people in rural areas—or other areas where people do not have to live next door to pubs—wanted them to do so, there would be an argument for a completely liberal approach. But we must face the fact that we have one Bill affecting the whole of Scotland and we must ensure that special attention is paid to the problems of people who live above and next door to public houses. We must do this through the medium of the licensing court.
There is another factor which is particularly important. If the safeguards are not put into the Bill, automatically every public house in Scotland would be entitled to open its doors on Sunday. That is not necessarily objectionable, but with each and every one of the present licence holders, the licence was granted as a result of an application for six-day opening, not seven. In some areas no objections were raised to the application for a licence but there might have been had the residents known that the licensee would be entitled to open on Sunday as well.
In some areas there were objections to licences but these were overruled by the licensing court. We cannot assume that they would have been overruled if the application had been for Sunday as well as the other six days. Had the licensing court known that the consequence of the licence was seven-day opening, it might in many cases, have refused the licences. The licensing court did not have to consider whether the granting of a licence to any pub in Scotland would result in that pub opening seven days a week. If it had been known, it is reasonable to

assume that in some areas licences might have been refused.

Mr. Tom McMillan: When the publican applied for the licence he applied under the law as it stood and the licensing court granted the licence in compliance with the law. The court must deal with the law as it stands and nothing else.

Mr. Rifkind: I accept the hon. Member's point. I am not trying to blame anyone. Of course the applicant applied for his license and the court considered the application in accordance with what the law stipulated at the time. If these safeguards are not put into the Bill, however, a public house will automatically be able to open on the seventh day of the week, even though the merits of its opening on a Sunday were never considered by the licensing court and should not have been as the law stood. The only way to resolve that problem is, as the Government have indicated, by requiring a licensee, if he wishes to open on a Sunday, to go to the court once more and to apply for such permission. The licensing court can then consider the application on its merits and come to a considered decision.
The consequence of not having the safeguards is to enable public houses automatically to open seven days a week, even though the licensing court might not have favoured such a proposal when the original application was made. There are therefore very good reasons why some form of safeguard is necessary. Safeguards must take account of the substantial minority of people who still feel strongly about the whole principle of Sunday opening. Their views should be taken into account, not to lead us to oppose the principle of Sunday opening, but to ensure that not too much damage is done to their view of what a Sunday should be.
It is necessary to have a safeguard because we must take account not simply of public houses in rural areas or those with residences nearby, but especially those in city centres where the permitting of seven-day drinking could create substantial difficulties for local residents. Only by the use of these safeguards will consideration be given to circumstances where a licensee will be opening his premises on the seventh day.
I hope that the House will accept the safeguards. I do not accept every detail of them, but they are reasonable. I hope that they will not become a permanent requirement of the licensing system, but for the next few years, until a new system is properly introduced, they present themselves as a reasonable compromise which will enable people throughout Scotland to welcome the reforms of licensing law and to ensure gradual but steady progress towards a more civilised approach to drinking north of the border.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: For once I find the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) singularly unconvincing and even muddled. They were not entirely straightforward. He advocated the special safeguard not because there might be a nuisance or disturbance, but as a concession to people who oppose the principle of Sunday opening. People in Scotland who object to drinking of all kinds, and particularly to the public houses being open on Sundays should, at the hon. Member's invitation, suggest that Sunday opening would create undue disturbance, but they should do so because they oppose the idea in principle. That is an unsatisfactory argument for the hon. Member to advance since he accepts the principle of Sunday opening. He should not say to people that if they do not like the pubs being open on a Sunday, they should cook up an objection on the grounds of nuisance and by that means secure their objective.
These people have been defeated. The majority has come down in favour of Sunday drinking. If the opponents do not want the pubs to open, they must make their case on general grounds, not on the basis of their attitude, which has been rejected.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Member is right in one sense, but he must accept that the decision of the House that licensing hours on a Sunday should be different from those for the rest of the week might give rise to a nuisance. Surely a different situation arises on a Sunday, because if it did not it would not be necessary to have different hours.

Mr. Mackintosh: The difference is that Sunday is a day when people are not at work, and it is therefore necessary to

have different house from those which apply on working days.
The hon. Gentleman said that we needed a safeguard. It is wrong to suggest that there are no safeguards in the Bill anyway. There are the safeguards which apply to licences on every day of the week. There is the key safeguard in Clause 32, and that will apply if we accept the Lords amendments. Safeguards are already there. The hon. Gentleman merely wants to put in a special set of safeguards which do not apply during the rest of the week.
He wants special standards on Sundays. I find it hypocritical and unpleasant for people to suggest that it is possible to have noise, disturbance and unpleasantness on Mondays, all sorts of foul habits on Tuesdays, create hell on Wednesdays, but that on Sundays, none of this must occur.
I want the same satisfactory standards applied throughout the week. The safeguard is there in Clause 32 which says:
Where a licensing board considers that licensed premises are no longer suitable or convenient for the sale of alcoholic liquor, having regard to their character and condition, and the nature and extent of the use of the premises, the board may decide to hold a hearing with a view to making a closure order".
That is far broader because it looks at the internal conditions of the premises as well as the environs and people's behaviour.
9.15 p.m.
If they are unsuitable, a licence may not be granted. We have all had experience of licence applications in our constituencies being turned down or withdrawn if standards or behaviour of people on the premises are unsatisfactory. I find it a particularly odious bit of old-fashioned sanctimonious Presbyterianism for people to suggest that we want two standards—one for Sundays and one for the rest of the week. One of the objectives of a reform of the licensing laws should be to raise standards of pubs and behaviour.
I have read only too often what my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) has said on this subject and no doubt I shall hear him again tonight making the same point about tenement pubs. I understand his position and I want to take a much stronger line. If a pub is unfit ad creates a nuisance


or disturbance on Sundays, it should not be open at all. It is curious and Scottish to say that people may be foul all week, but that they must clean themselves up and behave on Sundays.
The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) will be well aware of double or treble standards with, for instance, one door at the front of the pub being used during opening hours and another door at the back of the pub being used afterwards. I want one proper standard.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that in whatever part of Scotland one may live, there are certain things which give greater offence on Sundays than on other days and that there are things which people would put up with on weekdays but which they find offensive on Sundays?

Mr. Mackintosh: It is a particularly odious, hypocritical and unpleasant point of view which says that children may play and make a row on weekdays, but may not make a sound on Sundays. Good behaviour is a seven-day-a-week practice. Whatever standards and drinking habits we want in pubs in Scotland, do not let us say that we can derogate from them for six days out of seven. We must apply the same high standards throughout the week.
This point of view was well put in another place by, among others, the father of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), who is a former Under-Secretary of State. The Minister tonight did not deal very fully with the subject of alcoholism. The Minister of State in another place completely gave up that argument. He said that alcohol was available in hotels and all over the place in Scotland and that the aim of the Bill was to end the discrimination against one class of premises. I hope that we shall not hear any more of that argument tonight.
Do we want two standards or one good standard? I hope that all hon. Members will vote for one proper standard in public houses and in behaviour and not the old, two-standard hypocrisy which has crept into our lives.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr.

Mackintosh), in one of his usual arguments, seems to think that he has the monopoly of common sense and that everyone who disagrees with him is wrong, foolish, misguided or hypocritical. Irrespective of what the hon. Gentleman thinks, along with those whom he would represent, there are a considerable number of people—I suggest a majority—who think that a pattern of living that involves five days' work, one day of recreation and one quiet day is not offensive to the majority. I suggest that the majority like to have one day that is quieter than the rest, one day of recreation and five days' work, although normally those conditions are not available to Members of Parliament, who often have to work for seven days a week in unreasonable conditions, as you are well aware, Mr. Speaker.
If people wish to live their life in that way, why should the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian and some of his trendy friends try to foist their Chelsea ideas on those who are not prepared to accept them? Although I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, I classify the House of Lords as being far more irresponsible. Their Lordships have shown themselves collectively—I should not think of attacking them individually and I do not believe that we are allowed to do so anyway—to be a bunch of clowns.

Mr. Speaker: Order. In order that all should go well, it is customary for one House not to abuse the other. That is the general rule.

Mr. Taylor: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. However, it is clear from their decision that very few Lords live in Glasgow tenements above public houses. It would be interesting to have a statistical survey, but I think we can accept—the Secretary of State may have some information on the matter—that very few Lords live in that style in Glasgow. I am convinced that if more Lords lived in those circumstances their Lordships would not have come to the same decision.

Mr. Norman Buchanan: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should accept that their Lordships are acknowledged to be experts on the subject. The expression "As drunk as a Lord" is commonly used.

Mr. Taylor: It could well be that they have more experience of drink as a practice and as an investment, but I should not like to venture an opinion.
I say to the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian and those who feel like him that their Lordships came to their view irrespective of whether a Sunday licence will cause undue disturbance to a locality, even if it will cause an undue public nuisance. Irrespective of those considerations, they are in favour of a public house opening on Sundays. There is no question of that not necessarily happening if one person or two or three people say that they do not like it. We are talking about a general public disturbance or public nuisance in a locality.
One of the advantages of the fragile safeguard that we put in the Bill is that it gave people in the community some sort of say about the life style that they want in their community on a Sunday. I am worried that their Lordships seem to have taken into account only the interests of brewers and publicans, not the interests of the people and the staff. If we have no safeguards, it is quite certain, irrespective of whether it is said that they need not open, that the vast majority of public houses will open on a Sunday.
In some places it will be a licence to print money. According to all the evidence, it will lead to more drinking, and, therefore, to greater income. In the absence of any safeguards, it is almost inevitable that the majority of public houses will open. On reading the debate in another place it seems that no consideration was given to the position of staff.

Mr. Tom McMillan: I wish that I were in a position to act as a shop steward for staff in public houses. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that they are some of the worst-paid members of the community, especially those who work for brewers? When the Bill becomes an Act, I should like to be in a position to negotiate their new wage terms.

Mr. Taylor: Yes, that is something that we should all think about before we change laws.
I am worried that these changes are being made with no attention being given

to the intolerable living standards and life styles of those who work in public houses. Managers of public houses are on duty for six days a week. If they choose to carry out their responsibilities properly, they may well be in the position of having to be on the premises seven days a week if the Bill as it stands becomes an Act. It is intolerable that we should go ahead with proposals that will inflict that sort of life style on some one who works in a public house.
We should take into account not only the interests of brewers and publicans and those who will make a considerable amount of extra money out of the Bill, but the interests of those who live in our communities in Scotland and the interests of staff. I therefore feel that we should have safeguards.
The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian said that he did not like the idea of two tiers of decision. What we should have had in the Bill is a two-tier system based on incentives whereby one could get extra facilities only if one were prepared to play one's part in improving facilities. What I refer to as the safeguard of Clause 32 is not a safeguard in relation to the effect on the community. It is a safeguard only in relation to the premises. It concerns premises which are suitable or fit for the selling of drink. Even if a public house is made of diamonds with glass, it can still cause considerable offence in a community if it makes provision for Sunday drinking.
Therefore, I agree entirely with the Secretary of State. We have made a major blunder in permitting Sunday opening, as we do in the Bill. However, if we are to destroy the few fragile safeguards that have been inserted just because their Lordships have come to that decision, we shall make the situation a great deal worse and we shall inflict a pattern of life upon people who certainly do not want it, and we shall have no provisions to provide for it unless we have the present safeguards.

Mr. Canavan: The proposed restrictions in Schedule 4 would be unfair. They would operate unfairly, first, against the individual publican or the prospective licence holder. The duplicity of standards as proposed by the Government would mean that many prospective


licence holders would have to cross two hurdles if they wanted to have their establishment open on a Sunday. The Government have not satisfactorily explained why they want to impose these double standards. There is much to be said for the argument that if a pub is not good enough to be open on a Sunday, then it should not be open during the week anyway.
I understand the problems in constituencies such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook). I used to live in a tenement in his constituency. I know that in such urban areas there are problems associated with people coming out of pubs at 10 p.m. or, as the Bill proposes at 11 p.m. It is not nice to hear disturbances at night or to find one's stair messed up with urine in the morning.
I have listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) with much respect. However, his argument concerned stopping a particular pub opening throughout the whole week, or perhaps providing better toilet facilities inside and outside pubs. It is an argument for stopping people urinating where they should not do so and having more adequate police supervision. However, surely he would not argue that urinating in a close on a Sunday is any worse or any better than urinating in a close from Monday to Saturday.
The Sunday restriction order as proposed in Schedule 4 is unfair in another respect. Paragraph 15 says:
The licensing board may make a Sunday restriction order in relation to individual premises or in relation to a group of premises in respect of which the same type of licence is held.
That means that if there has been misbehaviour in one particular establishment the board has the power to impose a Sunday restriction order not merely on that establishment but on establishments in the whole area. One pub in an area may be responsible for a Sunday restriction order covering the whole area. Therefore, some good licensed premises could suffer from this restriction simply because of bad behaviour at one particular establishment.
I recognise, too, what the Secretary of State said—that if the Lords amendment is accepted we shall have a great number of pubs, not necessarily all—

opening on a Sunday. It is optional, but I expect that most pubs would open on a Sunday and that this may present difficulties concerning the conditions of work and payment of staff, and so on. They are not insurmountable difficulties. No pub will be forced to open. It will be purely optional.
There is a great case for fighting for better conditions for the bar staff irrespective of Sunday opening. They could have a more flexible shift arrangement. I have experience of having worked in a pub. I was employed by one of the biggest licence holders in Scotland, Scottish and Newcastle Brewers. At that time I was paid the princely sum of five bob an hour. Last year the pre-tax profits of Scottish and Newcastle Brewery exceeded £30 million. There is plenty of money in the brewers' pockets to pay the staff decent wages, so let us not listen too much to those who exhibit pseudo-sympathies for the staff. So long as the staff get organised through trade unions to fight for better conditions and better pay, they have nothing to fear.
9.30 p.m.
If the Government's proposals go ahead there will be unfairness towards the consumers as well. The existing law is that only hotels with four or more bedrooms can apply for a seven-day licence. In some areas there are plenty of hotels, but in other areas people who want a quiet drink on a Sunday have to walk miles to get a pint. In areas where there are no hotels and clubs it is unfair that the consumers should have to travel a long distance to get a quiet pint on a Sunday night.
In urban areas where there is a scarcity of hotels we sometimes have a situation where it looks as if everyone and his brother, sister and granny squeeze into the public bar of the hotel and there is absolutely mayhem on a Sunday night. There is nothing more degrading to the so-called Scottish Sabbath than the public bar of some of our hotels in Scottish cities on a Sunday night. People crowd together in barbaric conditions because that is the only place where they have the opportunity to get a drink. If there were more and better facilities, people's drinking standards would be far more civilised and that would lead to a far more civilised society in Scotland.
It is interesting to note that it is 16 years since the first Guest Committee reported. Guest recommended the Sunday opening of pubs. At that time the Government diluted the Guest Committee's recommendations. They did away with the stupidity of the bona fide traveller nonsense which applied on a Sunday. Now, only hotels with four or more bedrooms can get a seven-day licence. Often they are pseudo-hotels which do not cater for residents. They have four wee rooms, which they call bedrooms, just to get a seven-day licence.
In 1973, the Clayson Committee recommended the Sunday opening of pubs. Again, here we have the Government of the day diluting the recommendation by making the restrictions proposed in Schedule 4.
I see that there are four Members of the Scottish National Party present tonight. SNP Members are always complaining about unfair disparities between Scotland and England. I hope that they will join us in Lobby tonight. One unfair disparity between Scotland and England is the licensing law, particularly in respect of the opening of pubs on Sunday. Hon. Members who back in their constituencies might hypocritically condemn Sunday opening are not averse to knocking it back here during the week. I hope therefore that all 11 SNP Members come into the Lobby with us tonight. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) is not here. She might be on the vino in Brussels rather than on the whisky downstairs, for a change. But I hope that as many SNP Members as possible will support us in the Lobby tonight.
Surely the Scottish people, by and large, are responsible—

Mr. Andrew Welsh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) to refer to another hon. Member in that way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is never acceptable for an hon. Member to make charges against other hon. Members if any implication can be drawn from the remark made by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) I know that he would wish to withdraw it. Perhaps he would make it clear.

Mr. Canavan: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, and withdraw that comment. I merely suggested that the hon. Lady is having a wee refreshment in Brussels tonight rather than downstairs.
Can the Scottish people not be trusted to have the same drinking facilities as can the English on a Sunday? Can they not be trusted to have the same civilised standards? I think they can.
I find myself in a strange position since on this occasion I disagree with a Labour Minister and agree with the House of Lords. However, what convinces me that I am on the right side is when I hear the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) saying that he will vote with the Government on this issue. I still believe that the Lords should be abolished, but in this respect its Members have shown a far more enlightened attitude than have the Government.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With due respect, I believe that there was an imputation made against the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing), with whom I am not politically in alignment. I do not think an adequate apology was made to the hon. Lady.

Mr. Speaker: I understood that the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) had withdrawn his remark.

Mr. Hector Monro: I am worried that for the second time this Session I find myself agreeing with the policy advanced by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), even though I do not agree with his language or his imputation.
I do not intend to reopen the debate on alcoholism, which was well ventilated in Committee and on Report. Those who are interested in trying to improve this problem have had their say and have indicated how best the situation can be dealt with. I personally feel that the licensing laws of Scotland will not make any major difference one way or the other to the illness of alcoholism.
We must decide tonight whether we want to remain in the present situation, which is entirely unsatisfactory. Do we want a compromise such as that put forward by the Secretary of State for Scotland and by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), or


should we try to raise the standards by implementing the ideas of the Clayson Committee? After all, this important subject comes before the House only once every 25 years and therefore we should take the opportunity to grasp the nettle. We cannot let matters stand as they are.
A compromise is always an unsatisfactory solution. Therefore, we should accept the wise advice of Lord Guest and other noble Lords in another place who debated these matters at length and advanced admirable arguments about their reasons for dealing with the amendments in the way in which they did.
It is difficult in Scotland to legislate for the whole country at once. Grave fears have been expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) and others who represent urban constituencies in which tenement pubs are common place. The situation in those areas is very different from the situation in rural towns and in the countryside in other parts of Scotland.
Hon. Members have already mentioned the grossly overcrowded hotels in Scotland on a Sunday. Once we have given way on the principle of the consumption of alcohol on a Sunday—which has been the case for some years via the hotels—I believe that we should move into the area covered by the Clayson Committee, which took the view "Let us try to ease the pressure on Sundays and try to bring higher standards into the pubs than now exist". That is the whole tenor of the Bill. Then we shall reduce the consumption of alcohol, because people will not be fighting like tigers to get into the cramped cocktail bars in those hotels that are open.
There is much more to the matter than the simple prevention of the consumption of alcohol on Sunday. The Secretary of State's amendments would restrict the opening of public houses more than would the Clayson proposals or the proposals put forward in another place.
Therefore, I believe that it is much better to take the wise advice of Clayson and to accept all the problems of staffing and so on that may follow. The incentives of good pay and conditions overcome many such problems. We should look towards the end of the century and try to raise the whole standard of public houses and hotels in Scotland. We shall not do that by continuing restrictions.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: It would be unfair to pretend that I had not intended to speak until I heard the attack made by my hon. Friends the Members for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) and West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) on the speech I was not going to make, but it is a new and flattering experience for me to have a speech of mine attacked before I had uttered even a word of it. It is all the more remarkable as, unlike more distinguished hon. Members, I had not even issued to the Press an embargoed copy of what I was going to say.
My hon. Friends are correct. I come to the debate with a strong commitment to the Government's amendment because I represent a constituency in which a large proportion of my electors live in tenements piled on top of a public house, quite often one that serves not only that locality but the region as a whole, including the area which my hon. Friend represents and the area in which he lives.
My hon. Friends will be relieved to hear that I do not propose to rehearse the many arguments with which I wearied the Standing Committee on behalf of those electors. I am sufficiently wise to know that if I have not yet moved my hon. Friends with my electors' problems I shall not succeed tonight, but it is worth recalling that on Report in July there was no doubt that the majority of hon. Members were sympathetic to the safeguards then approved to protect the people in that position.

Mr. Mackintosh: That is not so. There was no vote.

Mr. Cook: If the majority were not with the proposal, we would at least have had a vote. We did not have a vote in July because my hon. Friend realised that he was in a minority.

Mr. Mackintosh: I was asleep.

Mr. Cook: That would explain some of my hon. Friend's speeches.
Those safeguards gained the support of both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), from the Opposition Front Bench, described them as important and desirable. That view was shared by many hon. Members in the Chamber that night. Unfortunately, that desirable and


important compromise was upset by the decisions of the other place.
It is not open to us in this debate to question the constitutional arrangements or raise the partisan decisions that have been made over recent weeks, but pertinent questions about a two-Chamber system are raised by a situation in which this House, after prolonged debate, arrives at a balanced compromise only to see it destroyed by another place, which clearly was not listening to our debate.
I have studied with care the debate in the other place. I have read what was said by the noble Lords before they took their decision. I am aware that "Erskine May" advises me that I must be courteous and moderate in what I say about the other place. I labour under the same constraints as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). Yet I must say I found the contributions to that debate disappointing.
9.45 p.m.
It is hard not to come away from that debate with the impression that those who participated lacked comprehension of the way in which working people live in an urban environment in Scotland. Lacking that comprehension, they lacked compassion for the problems that come with it. As the hon. Member for Cathcart has said that the only people for whom concern was expressed in that debate were publicans who might fail to get through such tests as might be applied by the licensing board.
Two arguments were produced in the course of that debate. First, why are we different from England? The provision does not exist in England and people asked why such a safeguard should be written into the law of Scotland. I do not yet despair of the hope that we may make laws for Scotland that are not only different from those of England but also better.
There is a real difference which is why we have to provide these safeguards. The urban environment in Scotland is different from the urban environment in the English regions. There are some people who live above public houses in England, mostly the publican and his family. But nowhere in England does the figure approach the large number of families—often up to 20 in a tenement—piled on

top of a busy public house such as I can take hon. Members to within my own constituency. The situation is different and there must be safeguards. We need make no excuse when people point to the difference in the laws between England and Scotland.
The second argument was that if the public houses are open on six days of the week they should necessarily have a right to be open on the seventh day. That is exactly what my hon. Friends and the noble Lords were saying. That is what the Bill would provide within the safeguards.
People who urge this argument are labouring under a misapprehension. We are not saying that we should prevent a pub from opening on the seventh day because of the quality of the pub or the character of the publican or the people who go there. The reason we are saying that there should be safeguards to prevent that public house being opened on the seventh day relates purely to its location. Location is not catered for in Clause 32. That clause refers to
character and condition, and the nature and extent of use
but not to location. What we are dealing with is not a licensing matter but a planning matter.
As the hon. Member for Pentlands said, tenants of public houses in the past have gone to the planning committee and have received permission to be open on six days. But they might not have received that planning permission if the planning committee had been aware that they would be open on Sunday. That is a well-understood planning principle and it applies to fields other then licensed houses.

Mr. Tom McMillan: Can my hon. Friend explain what planning has to do with the day of opening?

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend has served on a planning authority but he may not have served on the planning committee, as I have, and as other hon. Members have. As any Member who served on a planning committee is aware, the hours for which a premises will be occupied—whether they be a public house or an industrial or commercial concern—are highly relevant to the decision that the local planning committee takes.
If one asks for permission to open an industrial premises the committee will ask the hours on which it will be open. One is more likely to get planning permission if the premises are open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. than if one has work shifts throughout the night and on Sundays.
If my hon. Friends the Members for Berwick and East Lothian and West Stirlingshire are to be thoroughly logical, what they should say is that no factory should be given planning permission to be open unless it could be open on a Sunday The logic of their approach to public houses is that if one is not prepared to give planning permission for Sunday, those with planning permission for only the other six days should be shut.
That will not happen. Licensing boards and planning committees will not take away the livelihood of those who already have permission to operate six days a week. It is a chimera to think that a licensing board will weed out those which are not fit to open on Sunday and close them down for the other six days. I think that my hon. Friends understand that.
But even if elected members were prepared to do that, it would be unnecessarily harsh. There are public houses which open six days a week which are well run, in which there are no disputes and where people do not urinate when they leave, even up the adjacent stair, and where those living nearby have lived for decades with the background noise, nuisance and smell and do not want to close them for the six days.
All they say is that they do not want them open on a Sunday, on their day of rest, when all the family are at home. They are entitled to object. Unless we replace these paragraphs they will not have that right. We have the duty to restore to them that right which the Lords sought to deny them.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) summed up the argument against the Government's motion—a motion which I support—in a way which showed a profound misunderstanding of the Government's argument. He said that those who supported the amendment supported two standards

while he supported one good standard. He said that we were supporting two levels, one for the six days of the week and a different one for Sunday, and that that was hypocrisy. He wanted a high standard, hopefully improving, on all seven days.
It is not like that at all. Far be it from me to pretend that there is not a great deal of hypocrisy about drink in Scotland; of course there is. But a sizeable proportion of the community regards Sunday as different—whether for sacred reasons or because of the respite it offers from the hurly-burly of the previous six days. They apply different standards to it and that is not hypocritical: they simply look upon it differently.
People who take that view often consider other activities than drinking in a different way on Sunday. For example, the fact that many people do not approve of league football on Sunday does not mean that they disapprove of league football. They simply argue that mass entertainment in our major cities with all its resulting complications is not desirable on a Sunday.
I therefore do not agree with the hon. Member that support for the Government's motion is a cantish or hypocritical approach to a real problem. In a strange way it will make the legislation more flexible and permit a more sensitive approach to local situations even than the local option, which was what I supported.
Now, particularly in the urban areas, with very large districts—it could probably not be based on anything smaller—the local option would become virtually meaningless. Under the Government's proposal, the circumstances obtaining in particular places and affecting individual public houses would be scrutinised. I think that that commends the Government's proposals.
In a moderate, restrained and well-structured speech—I say that without offence—the Secretary of State repeatedly used the word "safeguards". That is a good word to look at. It means that one is trying to protect, to respond to and to be careful of the problems and attitudes of groups of people. Surely that is a good thing to do. I shall certainly be doing that in supporting the amendment.

Mr. William Ross: I am surprised by some of the remarks that I have heard today, bearing in mind that we are seeking to put back into the Bill provisions with which we were perfectly satisfied when it left this House and to which many hon. Members have referred as desirable safeguards.
When I questioned my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) about this matter, I did not get the impression that the people who were arguing the desirability of Sunday opening were lacking in vigilance. I thought that they were following the Bill carefully and closely. When I made my speech, I suggested that, although I was not entirely happy about the safeguards, if these safeguards were necessary for Sunday opening, they were equally necessary for Monday, Tuesday. Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday.
We are making a new start. I suggest that the standards that we set for Sunday should be the standards for weekdays as well. Only by accepting these standards and applying them to the rest of the week can we have the desirable improvement which has been asked for. I do not think that we shall get that improvement without doing anything. We had this improvement business in 1953 when we first embarked on Sunday opening. My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling-shire (Mr. Canavan) told us some sad tales about his granny, and all the rest of it. The one person who would never be seen in a Scottish pub was my hon. Friend's granny.
We want to see these standards applied. My hon. Friend made his heart-burning cry. Apparently he is opposing his right hon. Friend and saying that he is on the side of the Lords. One can imagine that the first hymn next Sunday will be
Who is on the Lord's side?
But we must not forget that the next hymn will probably be
Courage, brother! do not stumble".
I hope that we shall not waste much time. I am not happy with the Bill as it is. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind)—I think this was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—said that we were dealing with the whole of Scotland. This was a balanced Bill when it was produced. I had something to do with it when I

was Secretary of State for Scotland. We are taking away from different parts of Scotland and areas of cities the right to make up their own minds in the form of a referendum. We are wiping that out.
I find it very difficult to understand why another place should now say that, without any safeguards, there will be an automatic right given to all pub owners to open on a Sunday. I think that the other place is living up to its irresponsibility in a democratic sense.
Sunday is different from the other days of the week, and I am delighted that it is. Trade unionists think that it is different. If a man works on a Sunday, he gets more than for working during a weekday, because Sunday is the recognised day of rest. The pattern of life on Sunday is different.
When the Bill left this House—

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That Government Business may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.

Orders of the Day — LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL

Question again proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. William Ross: One of the other amendments made in the House of Lords was to change the Sunday opening hours by extending them to 11 a.m. until 2.30 p.m. and 5 p.m. to 11 p.m. This is something else that my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian accepted. He must have been asleep for most of that day.

Mr. Mackintosh: I was not only not asleep but I heard my right hon. Friend saying that he did not want fall-back positions because they would not work.

Mr. Ross: The one thing that will work will be the power given to the licensing court. That is what we have not got at present. The person who wants to open on Sunday has to make virtually a new application, and then


it is looked at by the licensing court in the light of the safeguards. What my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McMillan) wants to do in supporting the Lords is to give the right not to the licensing court—to which objection could be made by those affected—but to the pub owner. That is quite wrong in view of what we are doing elsewhere. We have gone a long way in this and it is necessary, in order to—

Mr. Tom McMillan: The publican has to re-apply to the board occasionally for his licence.

Mr. Ross: Occasionally, yes, for the renewal of licence. The rights in relation to individuals objecting to renewal are different from those where a new licence is involved, as my hon. Friend well knows.
It is right to focus on this. The pattern is changing on Sunday. It is being changed by everything we do. No Sunday trading Acts are applicable in Scotland. It was never thought to be necessary in a Presbyterian Scotland to have Acts of Parliament to allow shops to open and football and cricket matches to take place on a Sunday. There is more restriction in England than in Scotland simply because of that. Celtic are to play Ipswich on a Sunday. If we hurry up and get the Bill through, we can have the pubs open as well. Does my hon. Friend relish that idea?
If some people get their way, step by step, with competitive football matches on Sundays and the pubs open, we shall also have community hymn-singing, led by the hon. Member for—

Mr. David Lambie: Mr. David Lambie (Central Ayrshire)rose—

Mr. Ross: We shall have community hymn-singing—

Mr. Lambie: Mr. Lambierose—

Mr. Speaker: It looks as though the right hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

Mr. Ross: I think that we were right in the first place when we put in these safeguards, and we are right to follow the Secretary of State's advice and put them back.

Mr. George Thompson: I am one of the few Members to speak tonight on this matter who did not make

a speech on Report. In the middle of the night in question I decided to exercise—

Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Member fell asleep.

Mr. Thompson: No, something much more virtuous. I decided to exercise a self-denying ordinance. For the convenience of the House I decided that I would not make a speech. But when we arrived at 10 minutes to 10 the following morning, I wondered whether I had expedited the business of the House at all by my self-denial.
There has been mention of the old fashioned bona fide traveller. I was a mature student in Edinburgh University in the early 1960s. The bona fide traveller conditions in those days meant that I and many of my friends took long walks over the Pentlands on Sundays because it was possible to take a bus out to Balerno for a grand, healthy walk across the hills, arrive at a hotel somewhere on the other side and get a pint and some sandwiches. The only thing that we were not allowed to do was sing or play the piano.
Then I went to France for a year as a teacher. When I came back, the law had been changed. I am sorry to say that I was one of the few of the old band which had walked across the Pentlands on Sunday afternoons who continued to carry on this good custom, despite the fact that, when I had crossed the hills, there was no hotel open waiting to receive me and, as I did not like standing round in the dark waiting for a couple of hours, I took the next bus back to Edinburgh.
It has been said that there are different drinking habits as between Scotland and England and, indeed, as between Scotland and many other countries. I notice in my own area in the summer that, if I go into a bar and ask for "a half", the barman is likely as not to try to hand me a half-pint of beer, whereas in the winter he would not dream of doing so and would know that I was asking for whisky. The tourist from England and other places comes into the area in the summer and deranges the habits of the well-trained barman in my constituency.
I have to confess that my opinion on this matter has changed in the course of our consideration of this Bill. Before it


started, I was convinced that we needed universal Sunday opening—"The Jolly Beggers" approach. We in St. John's town of Dalry had both bars open on Sundays because they were both in hotels so that all the outlets for drink in bars on Sundays were open as they would be on week days. So I asked myself whether we could turn to other places and say to them "We are all right but, of course, you are different. Your cannot get a drink near your own homes on a Sunday." I wondered whether this was not another example of some of us in Scotland behaving as the unco guid and the rigidly righteous—a sort of alcoholic elitism.
That was my opinion when I first considered the Bill. But I listened carefully to nearly all of the many speeches on Report, and I read carefully letters sent to me by constituents and others. I paid attention to what was said to me by city Members on one side and on the other side of the great divide. I remembered, too, pubs that I had seen when travelling from my own home to such notable places as Bannockburn and Stirling and, quite frankly, I changed my mind.
I do not want us to continue a system where people in certain of our towns and cities have to travel miles and miles on a Sunday to get a drink. I think that it leads to the sort of scenes and the sort of drinking habits that we want to avoid. I believe that the Bill with the safeguards restored will make the proprietors of undesirable premises alter their premises to bring them up to the standard where they will be able to open on Sundays because they will have satisfied the licensing boards that their premises are now suitable.
I had one difficulty because of the speed with which the Bill with the Lords amendments came back to us. It was that I had no chance to go back to those of my constituents who had written to me and to whom I had written after the Bill passed through this House on Third Reading and to consult them further on the matter. I find myself tonight disagreeing with the Lords, and agreeing with the Secretary of State in his desire to maintain these safeguards, and I hope my support will not do him any damage.

Mr. William Small: I am puzzled about the matter

we are discussing. It is the kind of transcendental thought process which exists between this House and another place.
Some of my colleagues are pretty learned people, but I have an idea that they may have got it wrong. The Bill can be corrected only in this place. We here are the guardians of the rights of men and women alike. Men and women have the same rights, and I speak purely in platonic terms. Those equal rights were given force by the Sex Discrimination Act which was passed so recently.
We are seeing here the wisdom, thought and revelation of the other place, and that can command my support. I support also my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. When the Bill went to the other place, it contained no reflection of pagan hopes. To interfere with the Bill in the way that the other place did was an analogy of the situation in which the Christians would never kiss the lepers.

Mr. Tom McMillan: I believe that the House of Lords has shown the courage that we lack. It has faced up to the licensing situation in Scotland much better than we have. If the Opposition look at their amendments and speeches, they will see that they have settled for half a loaf. They wanted to maintain a principle as much as I did.
The House of Lords has given us the chance to make good the loss. If we follow through the fall-back position of my right hon. Friend, when an applicant applies for a seven-day licence and he gets turned down, he applies to the sheriff. The sheriff is asked to make double standards and he will not do that. What sheriff, having granted a six-day licence, will then tell a licensee that he cannot open on the seventh day? If we make bad laws, it is bad for this House, and this is a bad law.
Hon. Members have mentioned noise. In Scottish cities noise has changed very little, but pubs have changed a great deal. One of my constituents lives next door to Tennant's Brewery and the noise abatement officer visited him because it was thought that the noise from the brewery was depriving him of sleep. Noise from pubs is measured in the same way, and there is the same surveillance as of factories and vehicles.
The Lords have looked at this matter and have come up with the right answer. I think we should consider very carefully how this procedure will work. In the Bill there is a provision dealing with canvassing. If in one area there are five pubs and one is granted a seven-day licence while the other four are not, the pub with the seven-day licence will attract customers of the other pubs not only on Sunday but on the weekdays. This is offensive and unjust, and if we come to the fall-back position of my right hon. Friend, this will be the situation.
The Lords have got it right, and we should have the courage to support them.

Mr. Buchan: I said on Report stage that I found myself in the unique position in a sea of certainty of being the one hon. Member who did not know. The only reason I abstained was that the safeguards were written into the Bill. If the safeguards had not been there I would have voted against the Bill at that stage. This is a certain lesson for us.
10.15 p.m.
But I must emphasise that the situation has changed. There seems to be an acceptance in this House that a majority of people in Scotland are in favour of unrestricted drinking hours, but I see no basis for believing that. My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) told me that there had been a poll in the Sunday Mail, but I hope that we shall not rely on a poll which requires people to respond to an invitation to write into a newspaper. That is the worst of all criteria, and therefore we must stop that nonsense.
It is clear that since the passing of the Bill there has been a great deal of opposition to it, not just on the question of the restrictions but to the Bill itself. One of my arguments for not voting against the Bill has been that in the long run it is necessary to liberalise our licensing law in order to bring about a more civilised situation. However, while that is a basis for making this change, it is not the basis for saying that we should proceed without the safeguards. In allowing seven-day opening we are thinking of those who drink, but in the safeguards we are concerned with those who do not drink but are surrounded by the drinkers.
The vast pressure for this change has come partly from those of us who accept

the case for liberalisation, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), but most vocally from the brewers and the trade. I do not believe that the brewers of Scotland want a seven-day licence because they think that it will lead to less drink being taken. They want it because they expect more drink to be taken, and if that is not their view they are very bad business men, a quality I have not seen in them in the past. We would not have half the concert halls in Edinburgh if it were not for the brewers, and so a strange fruit is borne by the consequences of drinking.
The basic argument advanced by the other place—and I believe that it is the basic argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian—is that if the pub is not fit to open on a Sunday it is not fit to open the other six days. That is an irrefutable argument, except that it is not an argument with which we must deal. That is not the position that the Lords have taken up. They have said that if a pub is fit to open on six days it is fit also to open on a Sunday, but that does not follow and the argument has not been justified either here or in the other place. If a pub is fit to open for six days we must then examine the conditions which apply on the seventh There are plenty of circumstances in which we can endure certain disturbance and public nuisance in a certain period, but when that nuisance is applied over a longer period it becomes unendurable. That can certainly be the case in relation to Sunday opening in an area which can already be sore pressed with six-day drinking.

Mr. Neil Carmichael: Does my hon. Friend not agree that one of the difficulties in his argument is that there will be a tendency for objections to be made in what one might term the good areas, while in the less fortunate areas, where there are perhaps already too many pubs, the people will be less articulate so the pubs will open on Sundays in those places but not in the other areas?

Mr. Buchan: What my hon. Friend says is a true generalisation. One of the pities is that this is bound to happen in all circumstances. Objections tend to come from more articulate people. However, if we considered his argument here,


we should have to stop all planning objections because at planning inquiries the middle class tend to be articulate and the working class, particularly in the conditions which my hon. Friend has described, tend not to complain. It may be that they do not object, but that is no argument for not giving them the freedom to object.
It does not follow that because it is right for a pub to open for six days, it should therefore have a right to open on the seventh day. That argument has never been taken head on either here or in another place. That was the argument adopted by another place and that is where they made their error. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian and other hon. Members have made the same error.
Their argument is not irrefutable. What is irrefutable is the position of licences. Pubs are operating under licences granted for six days a week opening. The argument is now that we have changed the conditions under which the licences are granted. There are many activities for which licences are given on one basis and when that basis is altered, the licences have to be altered. The case is irrefutable. There must be a fresh application for a seventh-day licence. The circumstances in which the licence was granted will no longer prevail. Objections on the grounds in Schedule 4(6)—not in Clause 32—will have to be examined. They include the question of public nuisance and undue disturbance.
I find it intolerable that people who accepted this argument without a vote in this House on Report are now willing to capitulate when it comes back from the Lords. Where were their arguments on Report? That was the time for them to state their case.
We are right to reject the Lords amendment. The Lords have been illogical and have not understod the conditions of people in urban areas of Scotland.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: As everybody else has spoken, I suppose that I had better speak, too. The Bill was discussed thoroughly in the Scottish Committee and I thought it was rather a good measure when it left this House. Everybody in South Edinburgh is delighted

with it, and I shall support the Secretary of State.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: We have had a good, broad and sometimes entertaining debate. I was a little worried when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McMillan) was exhorting us to take courage. Was it a little advertising on the side for a certain brand or brands?
The speech of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was one of the most entertaining. What the right hon. Gentleman said about the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) may be covered by using the phrase "God moves in a mysterious way". Perhaps that phrase is as appropriate as any other.
I shall make only one or two observations as the argument has been well rehearsed tonight and previously. I must confess that at the beginning I took very much the same position as the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). Like the hon. Gentleman, I do not want two separate standards. If the debate were about standards, I think that what the hon. Gentleman said would have been highly relevant.
In this instance the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) is absolutely right. If we could see the Sunday standard applied to the rest of the week and could be sure that that was the objective, I should be more persuaded by what the hon. Gentleman said.
Another reason for my taking the view that normally I should be inclined to support the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian is that one of the factors I should like to see in going towards a more flexible system is consideration being given to locality. That is a matter that was raised in Committee. Surely it is right that consideration be given to the locality in which a public house is operating. If we have a restrictive system, it is much more likely that we shall have every public house either opening or closing. Such a situation would not necessarily meet the needs of the community.
There are two arguments that are of importance in this debate and they have been well rehearsed. One of the arguments was put forward by my hon.


Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) while the other was introduced by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook). The first is that we have to accept that we are moving away from six-day licences to seven-day licences. We have to take into account that the public houses that now have six-day licences will be able to move to seven-day licences and that some of the considerations which held when those public houses received planning permission or licences for six days may not now apply—in other words, a completely different set of circumstances may apply when consideration is given to the granting of a seven-day licence.
These safeguards are, broadly speaking, on balance justified in meeting such a change. If they were not present, we should in one sense be disfranchising many people who would otherwise have made objections.
The second main argument is perhaps the most important of all. With respect, I suggest that it was the one that was missed in another place. It is the argument that was put forward by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central. As the hon. Gentleman said, we are not talking about standards and the real issue is not concerned with standards. That is the point that was made when we debated the matter in Committee and when the principle was first agreed. We are talking about location. That is the important argument. The only way in which we can deal with location is by adopting the safeguard that the Government have provided. Location is important if we are to take account of the wishes of the people in Scotland who will be affected.
We are taking a great step forward, a step that I believe to be in the right direction. I am not like the Secretary of State in that, this is a principle that I have supported wholeheartedly throughout all stages. However, if we are to take steps such as this, we must have regard to the practical difficulties. I believe that the Government's safeguards meet the problem of location and that they should be supported. For that reason I hope that the Secretary of State is supported.

Mr. Millan: I shall speak only briefly because the arguments have been well rehearsed. From the speeches that have

been made it seems that most Members agree with the view I expressed earlier.
As the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has said, in moving to Sunday opening we are moving into an entirely new situation. It is right that existing licences were granted in a different situation when there was not Sunday opening. All that the safeguards do is to provide an opportunity of procedure for the possibility of Sunday opening, or an application for Sunday opening to be considered. The safeguards do not prevent Sunday opening. They merely say that in the new circumstances there should be an opportunity for the arguments to be rehearsed and for objectors to be heard before any decision is made.
If we were to accept the Lords amendments we should be denying any sort of rights to those who may be seriously affected by Sunday opening. I accept the point that has been made by several Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), that we have to have regard not only to the potential customers of the pubs on a Sunday but to others who may be affected by their opening.
10.30 p.m.
Sunday considerations are different from those of the rest of the week. I say that not from a sabbatarian point of view but for all sorts of social reasons. Certainly in terms of the social implications or the implications in an individual locality, opening on seven days is different from opening on six days.
Concerning standards, the argument works both ways. One could well argue that if the hurdle of Schedule 4 was not surmounted by the applicant—in other words, if the application for Sunday opening was turned down—the pub should be closed for the whole of the week, for the other six days as well. That is what hon. Members are arguing. That is as logical as an argument that says that because they are open for six days a week, they must automatically be opened on the seventh day. One could equally say that if the applicant cannot get through the Schedule 4 procedure, the result should be that the pub should be closed for the rest of the week. I seriously considered that as a logical answer to the problem. However, we


must deal with the practicalities of the situation.
A number of hon. Members have not applied their minds to the practicalities of the situation, the attitudes of local councillors on licensing and so on. Even as Members of Parliament, whatever we feel about Sunday opening, it would not be right to put a publican at hazard in that if he applied for Sunday opening he might finish up by not being open at all for the rest of the week. That would be a hardship and the matter should not be dealt with in that way. Equally, however, it could be a hard-

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment made to the words so restored to the Bill: in page 4, line 36, at end insert:

ship to many other people who are affected by pub opening times if they had no opportunity to put a point of view about the circumstances in which a pub not previously open on Sunday was to open on Sunday. That is what the safeguards are about.

I hope very much that the House will agree with my recommendation that we should disagree with the Lords amendment.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 90, Noes 36.

Division No. 371.]
AYES
[10.32 p.m.


Archer, Pater
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Roper, John


Armstrong, Ernest
Gray, Hamish
Rose, Paul B.


Ashton, Joe
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Ross, Shephen (Isle of Wight)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Banks, Robert
Hardy, Peter
Rowlands, Ted


Bean, R. E.
Harper, Joseph
Sainsbury, Tim


Beith, A. J.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Bishop, E. S.
Henderson, Douglas
Small, William


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hunter, Adam
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Buchan, Norman
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Stallard, A. W.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Campbell, Ian
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Cant, R. B.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Judd, Frank
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Coleman, Donald
Kaufman, Gerald
Stoddart, David


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Lamond, James
Strang, Gavin


Corrie, John
Leadbitter, Ted
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Thompson, George


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Deakins, Eric
McElhone, Frank
Welsh, Andrew


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
McNamara, Kevin
White, James (Pollock)


Dempsey, James
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Whitehead, Phillip


Doig, Peter
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wigley, Dafydd


Dormand, J. D.
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Ogden, Eric
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Eadie, Alex
Page, John (Harrow West)
Woodall, Alec


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Palmer, Arthur
Wrigglesworth, Ian


English, Michael
Penhaligon, David



Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Prescott, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Reid, George
Mr. Ted Graham and


Forrester, John
Rifkind, Malcolm
Mr. Alf Bates.


Golding, John






NOES


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Knox, David
Prescott, John


Brotherton, Michael
Lambie, David
Selby, Harry


Canavan, Dennis
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Skinner, Dennis


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
MacCormick, Iain
Sproat, Iain


Cohen, Stanley
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Crawford, Douglas
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Torney, Tom


Evans, John (Newton)
Madden, Max
Urwin, T. W.


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Watt, Hamish


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mawby, Ray
Woof, Robert


Gourlay, Harry
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)



Havers, Sir Michael
Monro, Hector
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hicks, Robert
Ovenden, John
Mr. John P. Mackintosh and


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Phipps, Dr Colin
Mr. Hugh McCartney.


Johnson, James (Hull West)

'other than an application under paragraph 11A of that Schedule where no objection is made in relation to the application'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Lords Amendment: No. 4, in page 5, line 18, at end insert:
and the clerk of the board shall accompany the board when it so retires unless the board otherwise directs

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment places beyond doubt the position of the clerk of the board when a board decides to retire to consider any decision. There may be some doubt on this matter. The Law Society of Scotland drew the matter to our attention and this amendment will put the situation right.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10

APPLICATION FOR LICENCE

Lords Amendment: No. 5, in page 7, line 16, leave out "types" and insert "type".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): With this we are taking Lords Amendments Nos. 26 and 28.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
These are all drafting amendments, and I would merely point out that no issue of principle arises.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11

SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR APPLICATIONS MADE OTHER THAN BY INDIVIDUAL NATURAL PERSONS.

Lords Amendment: No. 6, in page 8, line 15, after "employee" insert "or agent".

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are taking Lords Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 11, 15, 16, 17 and 18.

Mr. Millan: Lords Amendment No. 6 widens the provisions of Clause 11 about

company licences to take account of the tact that the person responsible for the day-to-day running of the premises—the joint licence-holder with the company—may be an agent, for example a lawyer or accountant, rather than an employee of the company. Therefore, the words "or agent" are included. The other amendments are consequential.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 7 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 16

OBJECTIONS IN RELATION TO APPLICATIONS

Lords Amendment: No. 10, in page 11, line 30, leave out "where practicable".

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment places an absolute obligation on the chief constable to intimate his objection to the applicant before the hearing. I think that this is right and fair to the applicant.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 11 to 13 agreed to.

Clause 24

SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO APPLI CATIONS FOR RENEWAL OF A LICENCE.

Lords Amendment: No. 14, in page 16, line 7, leave out subsection (1).

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment leaves out of the clause the requirement that an applicant for renewal of a licence, other than an off-sale licence, must produce a certificate about food hygiene from the local authority. The view was taken in the Lords that as the local authorities' public health officers will be exercising continuing supervision over licensed premises, as over other food premises, under the food and drugs legislation, there is no need for this further check at the time of the renewal of a licence. On balance I agree,


although I do not feel strongly about the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 15 to 18 agreed to.

Clause 31

SUSPENSION OF LICENCE ON RECEIPT OF COMPLAINT

Lords Amendment: No. 19, in page 20, line 37, leave out from "misconduct" to end of line 39 and insert
on the part of persons frequenting licensed premises occurring in those premises or any misconduct in the immediate vicinity of licensed premises which is attributable to persons frequenting those premises.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a rather better formulation of the wording in the clause. The amendment enables a licensing board in considering the suspension of a licence to take account of misconduct by customers of the licensed premises either in the premises or in the vicinity. It also makes the clause rather more comprehensive.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Bill as drafted said:
any misconduct occurring in the vicinity of the licensed premises on the part of persons frequenting those premises.
The amendment, which I think is better, speaks of any misconduct which is "attributable" to them. Does that mean that it would not be necessary, as I believe it would be under the Bill as drafted, to prove that, say, people involved in a fight had been drinking in the premises? If there were frequent fights outside a public house, it would seem that under the Bill unamended it would be necessary to prove that the people concerned had frequented the public house. Am I correct in thinking that with the new words no such proof is necessary?

Mr. Millan: I think that that is one of the effects of the amendment. It adds misconduct in the premises, but, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is misconduct
attributable to persons frequenting those premises.
The amendment also brings in the concept of the "immediate vicinity", which

I think to be right. "Vicinity" by itself in the old formulation was perhaps a little too general.
Taking the amendment as a whole, we have a far better wording than we had before.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 34

OCCASIONAL PERMISSIONS

Lords Amendment: No. 20, in page 23, line 42, at end insert "by a licensing board".

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment makes it clear that the limit of four occasional permissions a year for a voluntary organisation, to allow it to sell alcohol at a function outwith licensed premises, is a limit of four permissions from one licensing board. Some voluntary organisations are national organisations and they may employ different licensing boards. It is impossible to check the number of applications which may have been made in those different areas. The amendment makes this clearer.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 35

CONSENT OF LICENSING BOARD REQUIRED FOR RECONSTRUCTION, ETC. OF CERTAIN LICENSED PREMISES

Lords Amendment: No. 21, in page 24, line 29, leave out "construction" and insert "reconstruction".

Mr. Millan: I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment takes out the word "construction" and inserts "reconstruction". This is a drafting error. It should have been "reconstruction".

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 22, in page 25, line 7, after "board", insert "by order".

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a drafting amendment to take care of a defect in the wording.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 37

POWER OF LICENSING BOARD TO MAKE REGULATIONS

Lords Amendment: No. 23, in page 26, line 15, after "licences" insert "and occasional permissions".

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment enables a licensing board to make regulations with respect to the making of applications for occasional permissions. It already has power to regulate the making of applications generally and it seems sensible to give it the power to do the same with occasional permissions.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 38

POWER OF LICENSING BOARD TO MAKE BYELAWS.

Lords Amendment: No. 24, in page 27, line 6, at end insert—
(ff) for the granting of a licence of a type other than that applied for;

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment would empower the licensing board to make a byelaw allowing it to grant a licence of a type other than that applied for. A similar provision in the original Bill was eliminated because we thought that the provision had been seldom used and we saw no use for it. We have had representations since then, particularly by representatives of the entertainment industry, that a provision of this type might be of advantage in a case, where, for example, a public house licence was applied for and refused in respect of a cinema. The licensing board, though not willing to give a public house licence, might be willing to give an entertainment licence. It is necessary to have some way in which this can be done.
We are doing it in this case not by general provision but by allowing the

licensing board to make an appropriate byelaw. These byelaws will be subject to the confirmation of the Secretary of State. I can say now that in confirming them I shall be confirming them in the sense that the byelaw may provide for the licensing board to give a lesser licence rather than a greater one. If it were a greater certificate, or a more open one, it might be subject to abuse.
With that explanation, I hope that the amendment will be accepted.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 39

APPEALS TO SHERRIFF

Lords amendment: No. 25, in page 27, line 38, at end insert—
() On good cause being shown, the sheriff may hear an appeal under this section notwithstanding that it was not lodged within the time mentioned in subsection (2) above.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment enables a sheriff to hear an appeal which would otherwise be time-barred on good cause being shown to him. This matter was raised with me during Report when flexibility was asked for. I think that the amendment gives some flexibility.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 26 agreed to.

Clause 50

GRANTS OF NEW LICENCES AND RENEWALS IN NEW TOWNS

Lords Amendment: No. 27, in page 36, line 4, at end insert—
() Before granting or renewing a licence for any premises in a new town, the licensing board shall consult the fire authority for the area.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment would bring the handling of applications for licences in new towns into line with the procedure for other areas by requiring a licensing board to consult the fire authority before granting or renewing a licence. There is no reason why new towns should not


be treated exactly the same as other areas, and the amendment puts matters right.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 28 agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 29 disagreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 30 agreed to.

New Clause A

RESTAURANT IN PUBLIC HOUSES MAY HAVE PERMITTED HOURS ON SUNDAYS IN CERTAIN CASES

Lords Amendment: No. 31, in page 44, line 21, at end insert new Clause A—
A.—(1) This section shall apply to any premises for which a public house licence is held and in respect of which an application for Sunday opening has not been granted under Schedule (Sunday opening of premises in respect of which a public house licence or refreshment licence is or will be in force and Sunday restriction orders relating to licensed premises) to this Act—
(a) if the holder of the licence gives notice of the application of the section to the premises in accordance with sub-section (6) below, and
(b) as from such date as may be specified in the said notice:
Provided that a licence-holder shall not give notice of application as aforesaid, and this section shall not apply to the premises for which he holds his licence, unless—
(i) the licensing board for the area within which the premises are situated is satisfied that the premises are structurally adapted and bona fide used, or intended to be used for the purpose of habitually providing the customary main meal at midday or in the evening, or both, for the accommodation of persons frequenting the premises, and that the part of the premises mentioned in subsection (3) below does not contain a bar counter; and
(ii) in the case of premises situated in a new town as defined in section 52 of this Act, the committee constituted under section 47 of this Act for the new town have notified the licence-holder that they have no objection to the application of this section to the premises.
(2) While this section applies to any premises, the effect shall be that for the purposes mentioned in subsection (3) below there shall be permitted hours in those premises on Sundays, such permitted hours being the period between half-past twelve and half-past two in the afternoon and the period between half-past six and eleven in the evening.

(3) The purposes referred to in subsection (2) above are—
(a) the sale or supply to persons taking table meals in the premises of alcoholic liquor supplied in a part of the premises usually set apart for the service of such persons, and supplied for consumption by such a person in that part of the premises as an ancillary to his meal; and
(b) the consumption of alcoholic liquor so supplied.
(4) While this section applies to any premises, then for purposes other than those mentioned in subsection (3) above, or in parts of the premises other than the part so mentioned, or except as otherwise provided by this Act, there shall be no permitted hours on Sundays.
(5) This section shall cease to apply to premises on such day as may be specified in the notice if the holder of the licence gives notice of the disapplication of the section from the premises in accordance with subsection (6) below:
Provided that this section shall cease to apply to premises at any time on the licensing board ceasing to be satisfied as mentioned in paragraph (i) of the proviso to subsection (1) above.
(6) A notice of the application of this section to, or of the disapplication of this section from any premises—
(a) shall be in writing;
(b) shall, in the case of a notice of application, specify the date from which the section is to apply to the premises and, in the case of a notice of disapplication, state that the section is to cease to apply to the premises on the date specified in the notice;
(c) shall be served on the chief constable not later than 14 days before the date specified as aforesaid.
(7) The holder of the licence for premises to which this section applies shall keep posted in some conspicuous place in the premises a notice stating that this section applies thereto and setting out the effect of its application, and if any licence-holder contravenes this subsection he shall be guilty of an offence.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we are to discuss also Lords Amendments Nos. 32 to 37 and No. 48.

Mr. Millan: This group of amendments follows because the House has agreed that safeguards are necessary for Sunday opening. The new clause which is the subject of Amendment No. 31 re-enacts Section 8 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1962 in a slightly revised form. That section provides that restaurants and public houses may open on Sundays, and


since that time the number which have done so has steadily increased.
Without the new clause, it would be necessary for those licence holders—I understand that there are about 200 of them—who are already allowed to open on Sunday to apply under Schedule 4. We have safeguards, but no one would want those licence holders to have to go through that procedure. The new clause would allow that machinery to be set aside and the present position to continue. The other amendments are consequential.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: As the Secretary of State said, a number of restaurants open on Sunday and there is no complaint about them. On the other hand, the new clause would impose severe restrictions. It refers to premises which do not contain bar counters: drinks may be consumed with meals only. Is he satisfied with the supervision of these premises to ensure that they are bona fide restaurants in all respects? is this something which the hoards should consider or for which the Government have some responsibility? In view of the increase in numbers, is he satisfied with the present arrangements.

Mr. Harry Gourlay: Subsection (3)(a) of the new clause uses the words:
… supplied for consumption by such a person in that part of the premises as an ancillary to his meal"?
In order to help the police forces of Scotland in interpreting the legislation, would my right hon. Friend say what constitutes a meal in the first place? Is there any criterion as to how long one must take to complete one's meal and therefore how long one may be supplied with alcoholic liquor within the law? Does the meal finish on completion of the first cup of coffee, or may one drink 10 cups of coffee so that one may drink until the last minute of the period of the extension?
The way in which the present law is being interpreted by some police forces in Scotland would indicate that if one has a cup of coffee with one's meal and finishes that at five minutes to 10 o'clock, or under the new legislation at five minutes to 11 o'clock, one is not entitled to have another drink served from the bar. On the other hand, if a customer decides to have a second cup, or a third, or to exaggerate the position, a tenth, is he still

entitled to be served with liquor? Perhaps the Secretary of State could give some guidance.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Millan: I am always reluctant to give authoritative guidance on the operation of a piece of legislation because to some extent these matters are not for the Government but for the court or in this case for the licensing boards. On the general question of supervision of this section of the 1962 Act, we at Government level are not aware of particular difficulties.
Conditions are laid down, as my hon. Friend has said, about the question of a separate part of the premises and the fact that this has to be a genuine meal and not just sandwiches and an excuse for a drink. These matters are supervised. I can only say that I have no reason to suppose that there is any particular difficulty.
The idea of a licensed restaurant opening on a Sunday is something which an ordinary member of the public, as a potential customer, understands. It is under police supervision. It is not a matter of practical difficulty, although questions of interpretation of what is a meal, compared with something else which is not a meal, are questions for the court rather than for me.

Mr. Gourlay: Surely the court, in interpreting the law, would have some regard to what is said in the House and what the House means by its words? I know that it has been said previously that a judge in court has to interpret the words in the Act, but we should give some indication at least to the police forces because they instigate prosecutions in the first place. They go to threaten licence holders that if they walk into premises and discover someone drinking, with an empty coffee cup in front of him, they intend to report that to the procurator-fiscal for consideration of prosecution.
Unless the Secretary of State makes a statement, some areas in Scotland—I shall not name a particular area—will be affected, areas where the police have been rather vigorous in interpreting the present law.

Mr. Millan: My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Gourlay) has


some particular circumstances in mind but since I do not know what they are, or in which part of the country they prevail, it is not possible to comment with any knowledge. However, it is not for me to interpret the law, nor does anything I say on the Bill or in other ways have any influence on the law. The law is in this Bill and in previous legislation. That is what the court looks at, not at what the Minister says in introducing it.
I know that at different times there have been suggestions that we should put in a definition of table meals. I am not sure that they have ever been defined, but I will check and let my hon. Friend know if I am wrong. A precise definition is difficult and it would be better to leave it to common sense and interpretation. Similar considerations apply to when a meal is finished.

Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman said that he was not sure whether a table meal had been defined. Clause 138 defines "table meal". The right hon. Gentleman will find it at the top of page 84 of the Bill.

Mr. Millan: I am sorry about that. The hon. Gentleman is right. But there "table meal" is defined more in the sense of where the meal is eaten rather than what it consists of. The idea of a table meal is to avoid the snack at the bar attracting a restaurant licence. Such a licence is granted only if separate premises are provided for people to sit at tables to consume meals. A meal as distinct from a snack is not defined. That was what I had in mind.
The other matter is to a large extent one of interpretation by the courts. In doing that they will have in mind the new permitted hours laid down in subsection (2)
half-past twelve and half-past two in the afternoon and the period between half-past six and eleven in the evening.
I cannot give any more precise guidance than that.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment Nos. 32 to 37 agreed to.

Clause 84

POWER OF POLICE TO ENTER LICENSED PREMISES

Lords amendment: No. 38 in page 56, line 27, after "offence" insert "has been or"

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a slight extension to the authority of a constable to enter off-sale licensed premises to occasions when he has reasonable grounds for believing that an offence has been committed as well as when an offence is being committed. It is a minor improvement.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 86

RESTRICTION ON CREDIT SALES

Lords Amendment: No. 39, in page 57, line 24, leave out "or"

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords Amendment No. 40.

Mr. Millan: Lords Amendment No. 39 is a paving amendment for Lords Amendment No. 40 which adds premises with an entertainment licence to the list of those in which it is not an offence to accept payment for alcoholic liquor by a credit token. It was represented to us by the entertainment industry that it should be possible to pay by credit token for private functions, such as a dinner-dance, which included the supply of alcoholic liquor, at premises with an entertainment licence. The amendment enables that to be done.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 40 agreed to.

Clause 88

ORDER TO CLOSE LICENSED PREMISES

Lords Amendment: No. 41 in page 58, line 5, leave out "in" and insert "under"

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

This amendment corrects a small drafting error.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause B

POWER OF POLICE TO ENTER CLUBS

Lords Amendment: No. 42, in page 72, line 36, leave out Clause 113 and insert new Clause B—
B.—(1) If a justice of the peace or sheriff is satisfied by evidence on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing—
(a) that any registered club is being so managed or carried on as to give rise to a ground of objection to the renewal of its certificate of registration, being one of the grounds of objection specified in section 107 of this Act; or
(b) that an offence under this Act has been or is being committed in any registered club;
he may by warrant authorise a constable to enter the premises of such club at any time, if need be by force, and to search the premises and seize any documents relating to the business of the club and to take the names and addresses of any persons found in the premises.
(2) If any person found in the premises of a club refuses to give his name and address on being requested to do so by a constable acting under a warrant granted in pursuance of the foregoing subsection, or gives a false name or address on being so requested, he shall be guilty of an offence.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords Amendments Nos. 49 and 50.

Mr. Millan: Lords Amendment No. 42 makes the provision in the Bill about the power of the police to enter a registered club similar to the provision in existing legislation—namely, that entry would be authorised only by a warrant from a justice of the peace or sheriff.
The amendment fulfils an undertaking given on Report by my hon. Friend who, incidentally, is not here because he is suffering from 'flu. I am sorry that he is not here also for reasons other than humanitarian sentiments towards him. The amendment fulfils an undertaking which he gave on Report to maintain the status quo as regards police entry to registered clubs. It was clear on Report

that there were strong feelings on both sides of the House that the rather more stringent provision that we were providing at that time was not acceptable.
We gave an undertaking that we would revert to the previous position, and that is what we did in the Lords. That is the effect of Lords Amendment No. 42.
The other Amendments, Nos. 49 and 50, are consequential to Amendment No. 42, and perhaps at this time I do not have to explain them in detail.

Mr. Thompson: I have to admit that, due to the late hour at which the matter was debated on Report, I was taken somewhat aback by what happened. We had all been assured, I think, that the Government were determined that the main provisions of the Bill were unalterable, and therefore it was a surprise to me when I found the Government caving in to pressure on this matter. I regret that I did not intervene in that debate to make my point clear. One advantage of having a second revising Chamber is that it gives us a chance to come back to something we may have missed, as a result of sleepiness, on an earlier occasion.
I should like to see Clause 113, as it stood when the Bill went to the Lords, becoming the law of the land, because I think that the law ought to be the same for people who do their drinking in pubs as for people who do their drinking in clubs. I do not see why we should make flesh of one and fowl of another.
There was a great deal of argument about the fact that the club is an extension of the home. Some of us do not have that extension to our home, therefore we are unable to benefit from it. In fact, I am told that there are no clubs in St. John's town of Dairy. We have to entertain our guests at the local bar in the hotel. Therefore we shall not have the advantages that people in clubs will have if the Lords amendment is agreed to.
It seems to me that a well-conducted club would have nothing whatever to fear. I do not for a minute think that, even if we had adhered to Clause 113 as it stood in the Bill, the police would have spent their time prying into clubs that they knew to be perfectly well conducted.
I must therefore record my opinion that we ought to keep Clause 113 as it was,


and that we ought to disagree with the Lords in this amendment.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I thank the Secretary of State for putting the provision back in the form in which it left this House. I thank him on behalf of the New Club, the Western Club, the railwaymen's clubs, the golf clubs and the policemen's clubs. He was absolutely right.

Mr. Canavan: I, too, should like to put on record my thanks to the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing), who unfortunately is not able to be with us tonight because, as I understand, he has influenza.
Earlier this year the Under-Secretary and I attended a meeting in Bannockburn Miners' Welfare Club, at which there were representatives from most of the clubs in Stirlingshire. They put several points to us, related to the Bill, about which they were genuinely concerned.
One of the points related to the original Clause 113, which proposed the right without a warrant of police entry to clubs. At present the police require a warrant in order to enter a club. Under the original Clause 113 as proposed, such a warrant would not have been necessary. I therefore tabled an amendment on Report to preserve the status quo in regard to police entry. One of my amendments was to delete the whole of Clause 113. Another was to allow the police in only after they had a warrant. After receiving assurances from the Secretary of State that a suitable Government amendment would be tabled in the Lords, I withdrew my amendments. I therefore welcome this Government amendment, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to support it.
11.15 p.m.
The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) asked why we did not have uniformity with regard to the rights of police entry in respect of pubs, clubs and other licensed establishments. With respect, there is a big difference between a pub and a club. As the name implies, a pub is a public place. A club is not. The only people allowed to drink in a club are registered members and their guests. Every club has a registered list

of members, and it is only people whose names and addresses are on that list who, with their signed-in guests, are allowed legally to drink in the club. There is that big difference. There is a check on the people in a club at any one time. Not anyone can walk into a club, as he can into a public house.
The club is also different from the public house in that it is run by a democratically-elected committee, and that committee is responsible for the internal discipline structure of the club. Most clubs are very well run with this internal discipline structure. I know of one area in my constituency where, if a person is suspended or expelled from one club in the town because of bad behaviour, the other clubs also operate the suspension or permanent ban.
There would be genuine concern amongst many club members in Scotland if the police were coming in, especially at 11 o'clock at night, and badgering people by asking their names and addresses, and so on. It would do a great deal to destroy the generally good relationships which exist between the police and the community. The police are better engaged in looking for real criminals, especially at 11 o'clock at night, than in going round badgering people in clubs. If they have genuine grounds for suspicion, they can apply for a warrant, as the Lords amendment proposes.
This is the second time tonight that I have supported a Lords amendment. On the previous occasion I mentioned that I was supporting the Lords amendment rather than the Labour Government. I never thought that I should live to see that day. It may be an indication of how far to the right this Government have gone. I am glad that they are moving back a bit to the left in the shape of this amendment, and I happily give them my support.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: We have just witnessed an example of the remarkable faith that the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) has in the House of Lords. When this matter was discussed on Report although he received an assurance from the Government, it was entirely dependent on the good will of the Lords passing the amendment which the Government wanted.
We have to remember, however, that when the assurance was given, it was not given on the basis of argument. It was given because the Under-Secretary in charge of the Bill knew that he was on a loser. He argued against the case at present before us but said that he knew that he was on a loser.
Before we make a decision on this matter, we ought to know whether the police have expressed any views on it. I accept that there is a problem in that there are two different kinds of clubs. There is the bowling club, for example, where members can play bowls and then drink. There are also drinking clubs throughout Scotland. If there is reasonable suspicion that an offence is being committed in a club is it fair to insist on a search warrant being obtained, bearing in mind that it may take considerable time and that by then the cause of the offence may have disappeared?
Have the Police Federation, the chief constables or any other group expressed a view on this matter? If so, what is it?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is it not the case that the Chief Constable for the Lothians expressed to the Government his forcible opposition to the deletion of Clause 113, and that he made it clear that if the clause were deleted the job of the police would become more difficult? If when trouble blows up in a pub the police are compelled to get a warrant, by the time they return with it the troublemakers will have disappeared and the police will be unable to follow up the incident successfully.
Was not this matter dropped on Report because if it had not been dropped the whole Bill would have been at risk? Surely, if members of clubs are behaving themselves properly they have nothing to fear.

Mr. Millan: We have had a short rehearsal of the arguments which were advanced on Report. There is a respectable case for the original clause. If there were not, it would not have been in the Bill in the first place.
It is a very powerful argument to say that if a club is well managed it has nothing to fear from police entry. But surely there is a powerful argument, too, that a club is entirely different from a pub, and that if the members are behaving responsibly and reasonably and are enjoying themselves, they should not have to put up with the unrestricted entry by the police. We have to make a judgment between these arguments. The chief constables would like unrestricted right of entry. If there is trouble the job of the police is made a lot easier by that. But that is not the only consideration. We have to balance that against the interests and rights of the club members.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) said that the Government had dropped the proposal on Report because it looked as though we would be defeated. That is saying that the House was against the proposal. But the House did not pass an amendment which was defective in certain respects and which would have had to be adjusted in the other place. Instead my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary sensibly said that if my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) would drop his amendment the Government would introduce a similar provision in the other place. As is usual in such a situation, the other place co-operated, and we therefore have the amendment. I appreciate that not all hon. Members like it, but I commend it to the House.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 74, Noes 8.

Division No. 372.]
AYES
[11.23 p.m.


Archer, Peter
Carmichael, Neil
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Ashton, Joe
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
English, Michael


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Evans, John (Newton)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Cohen, Stanley
Forrester, John


Banks, Robert
Coleman, Donald
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Bates, Alf
Corrie, John
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Beith, A. J.
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Gourlay, Harry


Brotherton, Michael
Crawford, Douglas
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)
Deakins, Eric
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Buchan, Norman
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Harper, Joseph


Campbell, Ian
Dormand, J. D.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Canavan, Dennis
Eadie, Alex
Hunter, Adam




Hutchison, Michael Clark
Miscampbell, Norman
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Judd, Frank
Ogden, Erie
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Knox, David
Palmer, Arthur
Strang, Gavin


Lambie, David
Penhaligon, David
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Lamond, James
Prescott, John
Urwin, T. W.


Leadbitter, Ted
Reid, George
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rifkind, Malcolm
Wise, Mrs Audrey


McCartney, Hugh
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Woodall, Alec


McElhone, Frank
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Woof, Robert


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Sainsbury, Tim



McNamara, Kevin
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. A. W. Stallard and


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Small, William
Mr. Ted Graham.




NOES


Doig, Peter
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Henderson, Douglas
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and


Knight, Mrs Jill
Watt, Hamish
Mr. George Thompson.


Le Marchant, Spencer
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Question accordingly agreed to.

New Clause C

SALE OR SUPPLY OF ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR IN CERTAIN THEATRES

Lords Amendment: No. 43, in page 76, line 1, leave out Clause 120 and insert new Clause C—
C. A theatre erected before 1st January 1904 shall be treated for the purposes of the sale or supply of alcoholic liquor in the theatre as if an entertainment licence were in force in respect of the theatre.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment deals with theatres erected before 1st January 1904 and their licences. The previous provision was not properly drafted and left an unfortunate gap. The new provision makes matters right.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 139

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Lords Amendment: No. 44, in page 84, line 41, after "sections" insert "8"

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is the clause dealing with the transitional provisions, and it is desirable that the fees payable by applicants to licensing boards, which need revision and which will be prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State should be prescribed in good time for the start of operations by licensing boards in July 1977. The amendment enables regulations

to be made before 1st July 1977 by adding the appropriate reference to the clause to allow that to be done.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 140

SHORT TITLE EXTENT AND COMMENCEMENT

Lords Amendment: No. 45, in page 85, line 40, leave out "purposes" and insert
provisions of this Act or for different proposes, or for the purposes of the same provision in relation to different cases

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is basically a drafting amendment, but it gives slightly more flexibility by the introduction of these provisions.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 46 disagreed to.

Amendments made to the words so restored to the Bill:

No. 4, in page 91, line 32, at end insert—
'4A. Section 10(2)(b) and section 10(5) of this Act shall, with any necessary modifications, apply in relation to an application for Sunday opening as they apply in relation to an application for the grant of a new licence.'

No. 5, in page 91, line 43, after 'that', insert
',except as otherwise provided by this Act.'.

No. 6, in page 92, line 16, at end insert—
'11A. An application for the renewal of a public house licence or refreshment licence under section 10 of this Act shall state whether


the applicant is making an application for Sunday opening.'

No. 7, in page 92, line 17, leave out '5 to 9' and insert '4A to 10'.

No. 8, in page 92, line 18, after '11', insert 'or 11A'.

No. 9, in page 92, line 20, at end insert—
'12A. The grant of an application for Sunday opening under paragraph 2 or 11 above shall come into effect on the making of the grant except where there were objections at the hearing the grant shall not come into effect until—
(a) the time within which an appeal may be made has elapsed or
(b) where an appeal has been lodged, the appeal has been abandoned or determined in favour of the applicant for the grant.
12B. The grant of an application for Sunday opening under paragraph 11A above shall come into effect on the renewal of the licence to which the application relates.
12C. If an application for Sunday opening is made under paragraph 11A above any existing grant of such an application shall continue to have effect—
(a) until the first mentioned application is granted by the board;
(b) if the first mentioned application is refused, until the time within which an appeal may be made has elapsed, or if an appeal has been lodged, until the appeal has been abandoned or determined.
12D. The grant of an application for Sunday opening shall cease to have effect when the licence to which it relates ceases to have effect.'—[Mr. Millan.]

Lords Amendments Nos 47 to 50 agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 7

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENT OF ENACTMENTS

Lords Amendment: No. 51, in page 107, line 35, at end insert—

"The New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968

5A. In section 18(2) (disposal of land by development corporation), for the words "exciseable liquor" there shall be substituted the words "alcoholic liquor".

5B. In section 47(1) (interpretation), after the definition of "the Act of 1845" there shall be inserted the following definition—
'"alcoholic liquor" has the meaning assigned by section 138(1) of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976;'.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Lords Amendment No. 53.

Mr. Millan: These are basically drafting amendments. They replace the words "exciseable liquor" by the words "alcoholic liquor", which is the new term of art used in the Bill, and they provide for repeals of previous definitions.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos 52 and 53 agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill: Mr. Buchanan-Smith, Mr. James Hamilton, Mr. McElhone, Mr. Millan and Mr. Rifkind: Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Millan.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Orders of the Day — SEXUAL OFFENCES (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 7

GROSS INDECENCY BETWEEN MALES

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

11.38 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: I wish to oppose Clause 7. I am conscious that this is a consolidation measure and I do not intend to address the House on any of the merits of the clause, both because it would be incompetent to do so and because it is not relevant to my argument.
As the Committee will be aware from the debate on Second Reading last week, the clause relates to offences between males in Scotland. In particular, it continues the provision of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1885 whereby homosexual acts between consenting adults in


private will continue to be a criminal offence in Scotland.
As the Committee is aware, that behaviour is no longer a criminal offence south of the border, but no legislation has been introduced to a similar effect north of the border. Despite that, it has been the practice of successive Lord Advocates—and it was confirmed by the present Lord Advocate that it is the policy of the Crown—not to prosecute acts of homosexual activity between consenting adults in private. I do not wish in any way to question the merits of the matter. The basis of my opposition to the clause is that it is totally wrong as a matter of basic constitutional principle that Parliament should be asked to approve in a consolidation measure of an activity's continuing to be a criminal offence while at the same time the Lord Advocate informs the House that the Crown has not the slightest intention of treating such activity as a criminal offence despite Parliament so determining.
This is an unprecedented matter because, although the Crown always has discretion in particular cases to decide whether to prosecute an accused person, I cannot think of any parallel where the Crown has stated in advance that a whole category of behaviour, despite its being a criminal offence, will not in practice be subject to prosecution by the Crown.
No doubt the Lord Advocate will repeat what he said on Second Reading—that this consolidation Bill does not change the law and the situation will legally remain exactly as it has been up to now. Of course that is correct, and constitutional lawyers and Members of Parliament will appreciate the strength of that argument. However, as a Parliament we must be conscious not simply of the technical consequences of what we are doing but of the effect that it will reasonably have on public attitudes towards the matter.
Clearly the public as a whole will simply say that in 1976 Parliament gave its affirmation once again to this behaviour continuing to be a criminal offence. It would be reasonable to ask Parliament to do that if the Crown, the Government and the Lord Advocate confirmed that it should be treated as a criminal offence and be subject to prosecution. However, it is wrong and contrary to the public

interest that Parliament in 1976 should be asked to approve the inclusion of behaviour which the Crown has no intention of using as the basis for a prosecution.
Of course this is a consolidation measure, but it is important to stress that the Lord Advocate has himself conceded that there are many sexual offences that are not included in this consolidation Bill. Perhaps I may remind the House of them. According to a parliamentary reply given to me, the main statutory provisions not included in this consolidation Bill are certain provisions of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892, the Vagrancy Act 1824, the Incest Act 1567 and various local Acts. Thus, if the clause were to be removed it would in no way lead to this being an exception. It cannot be argued that all sexual offences are being consolidated in the Bill. Only some offences are being consolidated. We are arguing that this particular measure should be excluded.
The other point that I would stress is that I believe strongly, as do those hon. Members who have made their views known on this matter, that it is one thing for the Crown to overlook the provisions of an 1885 Act, much of which is no longer relevant to modern circumstances, but it is a quite different matter and quite unwise—I would even go so far as to suggest that it is improper—that the Crown should disregard the contents of a 1976 Bill when it has asked Parliament to approve that Bill in 1976 and Parliament has given that approval.
Parliament should not be asked to make a fool of itself or to stand on its head. If the Government wish the matter to continue as a criminal offence, let them be quite clear about that and treat it as such. If, however, the Government do not want to treat it as a criminal offence, if there is no possibility of bringing forward amending legislation at this stage, the least they can do is to leave matters as they are. They have worked reasonably well over the last few years under old Acts of Parliament. The Government should leave the matter in that way rather than cause unnecessary worry and concern to a large section of the population and make the job of the police much more confusing.
While undoubtedly the police will be guided by the Crown, nevertheless, if the


ordinary police constable knows that this behaviour has taken place and that in 1976 Parliament repeated this within its legislation, he is put in a difficult and unfair position in deciding whether he should take the matter further and seek to establish evidence that he could put before the courts.
For all those reasons, the inclusion of the clause is unnecessary, unwise and unfair. Certainly it brings Parliament into disrepute, and it should not be allowed to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: I intend to be brief. We had a very good Second Reading debate, which turned very largely on Clause 7. It is worth recalling that the great mass of opinion expressed in that debate was hostile to the inclusion of the clause. All six speakers who followed the Lord Advocate were hostile to its inclusion, with the exception of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Hutchison), to whom I shall return later.
11.45 p.m.
I agree entirely with the comments made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). We are not debating a reform of the homosexual law. It is overdue for overhaul, because for decades we have not been implementing the law as it stands. I am under no illusion that what we decide tonight will affect the law either way. The law will remain as stated in the 1885 Act until either this or a future Government have the courage to bring it into line with their practice or a private Member takes the opportunity of the Ballot to carry through a reform of the law. Even though the law will not be changed by what we decide on Clause 7, it is important that we do not consolidate it in a measure which we are passing through the House in 1976.
There are three reasons why Clause 7 should not be included in this consolidation measure. The first, which I shall not elaborate as we have already dealt with it adequately, is that we are apparently not prepared to prosecute under part of the clause. If we are not prepared to prosecute under part of the clause, we should not put it before Parliament in a Bill which when enacted will bear the date 1976.
Secondly, we have to recognise that social attitudes have changed since 1885.

It is a matter of judgment and speculation how much they have changed. There are some people whose attitudes have not changed since St. Paul wrote to the Romans, but there has been some change. No hon. Member could honestly say with conviction that in consolidating Clause 7 we are expressing the wish of the people of Scotland in 1976. That being so, we should at least fully debate the issue before restating the law. We should not in the process of consolidation, restate a law which does not reflect present-day social attitudes.
Thirdly, we should recognise that since 1885 the law in the rest of the United Kingdom has been changed. In the previous debate I said that the law in Scotland need not necessarily agree with the law in England and Wales and that Scotland should not necessarily be afraid to differ from England on a point of law. But I firmly believe that it would be intolerable, as long as we are one country—the United Kingdom—that a private act concerning individuals should be liable to criminal proceedings in only one part of the country and be perfectly legitimate in another part.
That was why I was surprised at the line taken by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South in the Second Reading debate. There is no stauncher Unionist than he, yet the position he took strikes at the very concept of the United Kingdom which we represent in the House. For all those reasons, we should not consolidate Clause 7.
The arguments have not been answered. In the Second Reading debate my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate rested his case entirely on technical, legal arguments. He said that, whether or not the clause was included, the law would stand as it is at present. But, mercifully, we are not all lawyers. When we meet in the House we must consider matters not as lawyers but as politicians. As politicians we must have regard not simply to the technical effect of the law but also to the wider social impact which our decisions will have on the country outside. In considering that wider social impact, we have to remember that we are not legislating for a nation of 5½ million lawyers. Very few people outside the Chamber comprehend what is meant by consolidation. They do not comprehend that a


statute we pass in 1976 has no technical effect either on the nature of the law or on Crown policy.
There is no doubt that the clause has caused widespread apprehension among people who are liable to be affected by it. That is plain from my mail. This apprehension in part is related to the point made by the hon. Member for Pentlands. Some who are liable to prosecution under Clause 7 are doubtful whether the ordinary policeman on the beat is sufficiently sophisticated to appreciate that we do not expect him to implement the measure we are passing in 1976.
I understand that the Lord Advocate intends to circulate chief constables saying that he wants no change of policy. In other words, although he is restating the law in 1976, he does not want the police to implement this part of it. It is an unfortunate precedent that he should go to the length of circulating chief constables in that way in relation to a measure passed in 1976. It is liable to blunt their enthusiasm for implementing other statutes passed in the course of this Session.
Lastly, we surely must pay some regard to the effect that inclusion of this clause in a consolidation measure might have been on the Assembly when it meets for the first time. There will be some hon. Members in the Chamber now who will no doubt serve in the Assembly, but the bulk of them—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has gone on long enough in that vein. Will he get back to what we are considering?

Mr. Cook: There are moments when I think I am at the Golden Lion Hotel, Stirling.
I shall sum up briefly. My concern is that the impression will be given in the Assembly that this Parliament, meeting in 1976, affirmed the view that homosexual acts in private between consenting adults should still be liable to criminal prosecution. I do not believe that that is the view of the people of Scotland, and I do not believe that it is wise for Parliament to state that view. Therefore, I hope that Parliament will reject Clause 7.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): I hope that the Committee will resist the proposal that Clause 7 should not stand part.
To leave out Clause 7, even with the amendment to Schedule 2 which has been tabled, would go completely against the spirit of this consolidation. As stated in the twelfth edition of "Maxwell on Statutes" at page 20,
a consolidation statute is one which collects the statutory provisions relating to a particular topic and embodies them in a single Act of Parliament.
This Bill consolidates the whole of the Criminal Law Amendment Acts. It does not seek to pick and choose parts to be consolidated and parts to be left in the original enactments.
Hon. Members supporting the amendments seem to be under the misapprehension that there are two kinds of provisions in the Criminal Law Amendment Acts, first-class provisions and second-class provisions. Only first-class provisions are for inclusion in the consolidation Bill, and second-class ones—such as Section 11 of the 1885 Act as re-enacted in the present clause, to which the lion. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) objects—are to be relegated and sent back to the 1885 Act.

Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. and learned Gentleman accuses me of suggesting that there are two classes of law. Is that not exactly what he is advocating—that because it is unfair it is a part of the law that can be ignored?

The Lord Advocate: I knew that I should not have given way to the hon. Gentleman. I do not propose to do so again.
It is difficult to see how this approach makes any sense except by reference to the merits of the provisions, which would take us outside the bounds of order. But it is in any event completely misconceived. From the point of view of legal authority, there is absolutely no difference whether a provision is left in its original enactment or consolidated. The exercise of dropping the clause is a pointless and peevish demonstration of disapproval, particularly when one recalls that the original complaint was that the present Bill was too narrow in its scope in that it did not cover all sexual offences.


If Clause 7 is dropped, its scope will be still narrower.
In the same vein, I would emphatically refute any suggestion that an old enactment is somehow less potent than a recent one and so less qualified for consolidation, or that the inclusion of an old provision in a current consolidation revitalises it or gives it new force. As Lord Hanworth, Master of the Rolls, said in the case of Gilbert v. Gilbert, reported in 1928 Probate, the purpose of a consolidation Act is
to reproduce the law as it stood before".
In no sense is it upgraded or given force which it did not previously possess.
Another fallacy which must be refuted is the idea that because a small part of Clause 7 is not to give rise to prosecution, and is in that sense not fully enforced, the clause is not in force. That obviously is a non sequitur. The Lord Advocate's discretion not to prosecute does not change the law. All of what is struck at by Clause 7 remains unlawful until a substantive change in the law is made—and this cannot be done by consolidation.
It is wrong and mischievous to suggest, as the hon. Member for Pentlands did, that the provisions of the clause are a dead letter. The clause is alive in every sense to protect young males of under 21, to protect those who do not fully and freely consent to a homosexual act and to strike at such acts in conditions other than total privacy. It is an important measure of social protection for young males comparable to similar provisions elsewhere in the Criminal Law Amendment Acts for the protection of young females.
To show that the clause is very far from a dead letter, I need only cite the figures for prosecutions and convictions for offences under Section 11 of the 1885 Act in 1974 and 1975. There were 49 prosecutions and 39 convictions in 1974, and 76 prosecutions and 73 convictions in 1975.
It is also wrong to suggest that the only provisions relating to homosexuality are those of Clause 7. There are provisions in Clause 12(1) and in Clause 13(1)(b) which cover homosexual as well as heterosexual situations.
In conclusion, I caution hon. Members against allowing a desire for possible reform

of the law as to homosexual acts between consenting adults in private in Scotland to lead them into doing permanent damage to the process of consolidation. That danger is real.

Mr. David Steel: The Lord Advocate has given a lucid and coherent technical explanation of his stand. I do not argue with him on it, but I think—because I know him well enough that he can wear another hat as a reforming politician—that he cannot expect us to accept "Maxwell on Statutes", Lord Hanworth and the rest that he quoted against the powerful arguments of the hon. Members for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) and Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook).
The House of Commons has rules against tedious repetition. I know that they apply to repetition in one speech, but perhaps in this case they should apply to the speeches of all lion. Members, and I do not wish to enlarge on the arguments already advanced. However, I repeat that it is undesirable that the law should be left in a state where executive action decides whether it should be implemented. I accept that the Lord Advocate is prepared to give instructions that the procedure followed for a number of years shall continue to be followed. But the House has no guarantee that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will remain Lord Advocate for ever. What would happen if the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Hutchison) were Lord Advocate? I do not suppose that the same policy would be pursued.
Therefore, we are right to say that many of us do not accept that the provisions of the 1885 Act should remain on the statute book. If we accept that proposition, we should certainly resist the Lord Advocate's argument in the name of the purity of consolidation, which was the sole argument he advanced against the updating of the law.
I took the Lord Advocate's argument that parts of the clause still need to be retained in the interests of the protection of people, but he met the argument earlier when he said that the 1885 provisions remained in force. I would far rather see the position left as it is, with certain parts of the 1885 Act having fallen into desuetude. The last thing Parliament should do is to agree that they should be technically updated to form


part of the law which Parliament has apparently seriously considered in 1976.
I hope that those of us who feel strongly on the issue will carry it to a Division.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I was surprised at the tone and content of parts of the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. On the one side, some of us are arguing the social case for the provisions not being re-enacted. On the other side, my right hon. and learned Friend has argued the legalistic, technical case about the importance of a consolidation measure not being tampered with. His tone tonight was rather different, making the point that the clause remains live and active. He underlined this by referring to certain aspects of the clause such as the question of procurement of persons under a certain age. No one denies that socially or legally the clause remains active. However, it also relates to consenting adults in private.
We clearly cannot amend the clause in this way. Therefore the best way to meet the legal argument about this part of the law remaining in force is to leave this provision in the 1885 Act but not to give it further endorsement by passing it tonight. I also reject the argument of relating it to other provisions in the clause.
12 midnight
The Lord Advocate dealt with what he regarded as a number of fallacies. He said that he had been criticised because the Bill was too narrow. That is incorrect. What I said on Second Reading was that the consolidation measure did not include all aspects of sexual offences and for that reason there was no objection to leaving this one out also. That is very different from saying that we criticised the Bill simpliciter as being too narrow. I am sure that the Lord Advocate would accept that.
The deletion of the clause would not change the law, but it would give security to people who are worried about the present situation. That itself would not affect the consolidation measure because, that which is left in will still be consolidated.
Since this measure does not include the whole of the sexual offences law, no problem remains. It is not enough to say that all the sexual offences are included. There are a number of others which are not. There is no argument for leaving this aspect out. Certainly no argument has been adduced by the Lord Advocate in respect of the social point, the legal point or the consolidation point. In my view, all his arguments fell. I only wish that he would help the Committee by agreeing with us and withdrawing the clause.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: The Lord Advocate is right. This is a consolidation measure, and if we want to discuss homosexuality it should be done in a separate Bill or by some other means. I shall certainly support the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
I have been attacked a little. I would remind the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) that I voted against a change in the law. I am a Unionist, and that is my answer to the hon. Gentleman. However, hon. Members did not take my advice.
The Lord Advocate is right: this is a difficult subject. I do not want to be hard on anyone. I think that the law as it stands in Scotland is being conducted admirably. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) suggested that if I were Lord Advocate things might be different. Yes, they probably would be, because I might chase some of the rotten apples.

Mr. George Reid: We in the Scottish National Party regard Clause 7 as a free-vote issue, as do the other parties. Before the passing of the Bill of the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), there were fewer prosecutions for homosexuality in Scotland than there were in England and Wales—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We are not debating that at the moment.

Mr. Reid: I was merely dealing with the hypocrisy of the matter, Sir Myer.
The inclusion in the Bill of this Victorian piece of legislation is, in essence, hypocritical. The Lord Advocate would argue against that and say


that no new legislation is involved. He is right, but I doubt whether that will be understood by the public at large or by policemen on the beat. I had a letter as recently as Monday this week from a minister of the cloth urging me to extirpate homosexuality in language which would be more appropriate to the denizens of Sodom and Gomorrah. Therefore, there is a gap in understanding. Some members of the Scottish minority groups who have been left in peace in recent years fear that they are being stigmatised as common criminals in a piece of 1976 legislation.
What is more important is that the clause brings Parliament into disrepute. The House is being asked to put on to the statute book something which a Minister of the Crown assures us will never be acted upon in the Scottish courts. That is what the Minister tells us, although he cannot bind his successors It is one thing to cast a blind eye at legislation which was passed when sexual mores were Victorian and markedly more illiberal than they are today, but it is quite another thing to ask hon. Members in the last quarter of the twentieth century to re-enact a measure which is not enforceable. That is "Alice in Wonderland" stuff. What sort of law is it that is unenforceable? Measures of this type can only bring Parliament into disrepute with the general public.
The Lord Advocate says that he is neutral and is simply following the recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission. I respect that, but the Bill itself is not neutral. It does not consolidate all the law on Scots sexual offences. Someone in the Scottish Law Commission had to go through enactments with a fine-tooth comb, making value judgments about what should be put in and what should be left out. The Bill does not cover the Burgh Police Acts, the Vagrancy Act or the Incest Act of 1567. If they can be excluded, presumably there would be nothing wrong with leaving this clause out. Its inclusion, while it will not change the law, is bound to reinforce and buttress it and give it new prominence in the public mind in Scotland.
I am not even sure that the 1885 Act sits comfortably within the frame of this measure. The offences listed relate in large part to minors. The provisions

about the white slave traffic, impersonation of a husband and the behaviour of masters and mistresses are clearly minimal in their competency compared with, the number of homosexuals in Scotland. All the clauses apart from Clause 7 deal with heterosexual offences. They should be consolidated separately from homosexual offences.
I do not know where the pressure for this measure comes from. Lawyers to, whom I have spoken admit that it would be handy in a legal sense, but they are not desperate to see it on the statute book. Many of them have made the good point to me this week that, if the Government can find time for this Bill, the time would have been better spent on reforming the Scots law on homosexual offences, recognising the hypocrisy of the situation and rescinding the 1885 Act. For those reasons, I hope that the Lord Advocate will think again.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I am surprised at what the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) says about parliamentary time. Consolidation measures usually stir something up. That is what has happened tonight.
If Clause 7 had not been in the Bill, I should not have been unduly worried, because, as the Lord Advocate said, it would not have made any difference in the law. But it is in the Bill. Although no change in the law is intended, if the House had decided to insert a provision like Clause 7 where none existed previously that would have been interpreted outside as a significant action. Conversely, if Clause 7 is removed that, too, will be seen as significant.
It is not good enough to say that this does not matter. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) said that the inclusion of the clause had caused apprehension. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) said that its removal would give security to those who are worried. It will do nothing of the sort. We are told that whether Clause 7 is in the Bill or not makes no difference to the law. Therefore, hon. Members are really asking us to give the impression that a change is being made in the law.

Mrs. Margaret Bain: Does not the hon. Member agree


that the reiteration of this legislation is causing concern because it seems unlikely that a Bill will be brought forward to reform the laws relating to homosexuals in Scotland?

Mr. Taylor: No consolidation measure causes concern to anyone unless it is used, as this one is, to achieve something which has not been achieved through a Private Member's Bill. If people want to change the law on homosexuality, they should present a Private Member's Bill or a Government Bill. They should not achieve their object by playing around with a consolidation Bill. I am sure that if there were a proper Bill I should be

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 8 to 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

on the same side as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Hutchison), but we are not discussing that tonight.

If we took out Clause 7, our action would be interpreted as though Parliament had made a fundamental decision on a moral issue. A consolidation measure is not the occasion for making that decision. It should be made later, at the proper stage. I support the Lord Advocate.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 37, Noes 27.

Division No. 373.]
AYES
[12.10 a.m.


Ashton, Joe
Graham, Ted
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Bates, Alf
Harper, Joseph
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Brotherton, Michael
Hunter, Adam
Stradling Thomas, J.


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Campbell, Ian
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Thompson, George


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Leadbitter, Ted
Urwin, T. W.


Cohen, Stanley
Le Marchant, Spencer
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Coleman, Donald
McCartney, Hugh
Woodall, Alec


Corrie, John
McElhone, Frank
Woof, Robert


Deakins, Eric
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)



Doig, Peter
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Dormand, J. D.
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Mr. James Hamilton and


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Mr. Thomas Cox.


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Small, William





NOES


Bidwell, Sydney
Lambie, David
Rifkind, Malcolm


Buchan, Norman
Lamond, James
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Canavan, Dennis
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Skinner, Dennis


Carmichael, Neil
McNamara, Kevin
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


English, Michael
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Evans, John (Newton)
Ogden, Eric



Forrester, John
Penhaligon, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Prescott, John
Mr. A. J. Beith and


Hicks, Robert
Reid, George
Mrs. Margaret Bain.


Knox, David

Orders of the Day — WHITE HART TRAINING CENTRE, HARROGATE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Graham.]

12.21 a.m.

Mr. Robert Banks: I am particularly grateful to Mr. Speaker for giving me this opportunity of raising the extremely important subject of the cost of the White Hart training centre in Harrogate to the National Health Service, not only because it is a matter of very great concern in my constituency but because of its significance in the NHS picture.
This debate takes place against the background of several factors. Expenditure by the NHS has risen since 1971–72


from £1,981 million to an estimated £4,564 million by 1975–76. The Government are borrowing something over £10,000 million this year to finance this rate of expenditure in the NHS and in other departments.
This increase in the rate of Government spending has drawn people from the industrial productive sector of our economy into the non-productive sector of Government administration. It has meant the mortgaging of the young generation to the yoke of indebtedness and vast borrowings. It has brought about a deep and worsening financial and productive crisis, with a serious loss of confidence in the Government here at home and abroad. These conditions dictate careful and restrained expenditure and the placing of emphasis on sustaining productive industrial growth.
The White Hart was built as a hotel in the 1840s, and in 1952 it emerged as a hospital for patients having physiotherapy treatment. It later became an annexe to the Royal Bath Hospital, having 120 beds for rheumatic patients. In 1970 it was closed because it was said that the building was unsafe and its repair too expensive.
In 1974, when I had the honour to be returned as the Member of Parliament for Harrogate, the future of the empty building was in doubt. I supported those who valued its architectural and landscape importance to the town. Therefore, when the announcement was made later in the year that the Secretary of State had decided to recondition the building and convert it into a 54-bedroom centre for training senior administrators, I shared the general feeling of relief that some useful purpose had been found for the building, which was already owned by the NHS.
Work became apparent early in 1975, and when I sought information by letter from the Minister I was told that the cost of conversion would amount to approximately £290,000, that the centre would open in April 1976 and that the estimated running cost would be in the region of £80,000 per annum.
I wrote again in July of this year for confirmation of the figures given earlier. Owing to the delay in obtaining a reply, I tabled a Question and ascertained that the estimated running cost was now

£235,000—an increase of £155,000 per annum in one year. The conversion cost was later estimated to amount to £297,728 in a letter which I received on 10th August.
The Under-Secretary has a duty now to explain this gigantic increase in estimated running costs and to say whether a proper costing of this costly enterprise was worked out before the scheme was approved. Whether the running costs are paid entirely by the Department in London or partly by health authorities sending students on courses at the centre is neither here nor there. The fact is that the cost has to be borne by the National Health Service as a whole and paid for by the taxpayer. I should be grateful to know how the capital and running costs are funded and whether cash limits on the centre apply
The overriding question is how this expensive scheme came to be given priority over other expenditure in the NHS and how such an expensive project was justified in the first place. How is it that it is so necessary to spend this amount of capital and to burden the NHS with an overhead of nearly £250,000 a year, which will rise with inflation, to train senior staff in the five-star hotel conditions that I have seen at the White Hart? It has brought yet more bureaucrats and staff into the NHS to train senior administrators with management responsibilities, and there is now yet one more building to be maintained and administered.
I am told that there are 38 members of staff at the centre in all, and they include our porters. Will the Under-Secretary please clarify this and indicate the salary and wage scales applicable?
The significance of this case for the country is that it is an example of where expenditure should have been cut to reduce overall expenditure and the National Debt. Above all, it is an example of misjudged priorities. I have the impression that the money was there in the appropriation and that the Minister was determined to spend it. The scheme was undertaken by the Department in Whitehall, and I understand that the regional health authority held only a watching brief on the conversion works.
I visited the White Hart on 29th September when a course was being held for district dieticians. This was shortly


after the centre had opened. There are 94 district dieticians in the NHS, and I cannot help wondering whether those who were on the course were in the senior administrative bracket that the centre is designed to train.
I could not find one example anywhere to show that some small expense had been spared. Each bedroom has piped radio equipment, and my impression was one of expense, quality and prestige. A visiting delegation from a foreign Parliament would undoubtedly be immensely impressed to stay there. The cost of conversion includes, I trust, all equipment, furniture and general furnishings, and I look to the hon. Gentleman for confirmation of the final conversion costs and running costs and the cost of those items separately of which I have given prior notice in other questions.
The building is carpeted throughout, and my impression is that this is the sort of luxury to which even our best hotels do not run. How much carpeting was supplied and at what cost per square yard, on average?
I was surprised to see a television studio and to hear that an element of the training was in making television appearances. How much did this cost, and why is public money being spent to train management in the art of television rather than to obtain greater efficiency in their jobs—or is it that it is fun for the course members? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will answer this.
The principal's conference room on the ground floor is furnished in a style and quality which might be featured in the glossiest international magazine to illustrate the most sumptuous style of the top British executive. Nothing in embassies that I have seen abroad can match what I saw as a way to impress. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us an example of the cost of just one elbow chair, for instance, the cost of this room and the furnishing of it.
I received a letter a few days ago in the course of which the writer said:
When we saw the bar … we were amazed. It is all like 'Alice in Wonderland'. There are hospitals where two operations cannot be done at the same time because there is only one set of instruments. It is obvious there is no check on public money.

Many people have similarly expressed amazement and wonder at the sight of the bar. They are taxpayers' and as such they have the right to know the cost. I ask the Under-Secretary to satisfy that curiosity tonight.
How right the writer of that letter is. Is it any wonder that people are disillusioned with the National Health Service or with a Government who direct spending in this way? There is a little boy in my constituency who has been told that he must wait a year for an important ear operation because of the waiting list for surgery cases. How can the Under-Secretary justify the scheme when there are cases such as that, when there are doctors and consultants who are exasperated with the National Health Service, when phase 2 of the Harrogate district hospital is still waiting to be built and when other similar schemes in Yorkshire are in the same boat? Similarly, the question is raised as to why the scheme came to be put into operation when there are 980 other NHS training establishments already in existence. Was it impossible to utilise some of those facilities? Was it necessary to embark upon this capital and overhead cost of the White Hart when so many hotels, private colleges and universities are able to provide facilities and accommodation?
The Under-Secretary knows that this was an expensive error of judgment. I hope he will earn our respect by admitting it. Training, if it is the right training, is important in improving efficiency. That was always the case, before and since reorganisation. But the country has been brought to its knees financially, and to set up a training school at this cost when so many cheaper alternatives are available is a scandalous disgrace.
The White Hart is only part of the story. Bureaucracy has a natural tendency to spread, and four houses were purchased close to the White Hart. Why were they bought and what did they cost? How much has been spent on them and what is their future?
At the end of this sorry tale, what can we hope for? I trust that the debate will serve as a check on other schemes in the Minister's mind. I hope that every


economy will be made to reduce overheads at the centre. I hope that the expensive furniture will be put to more productive use in our embassies abroad and that a utilitarian sense of proportion will result in replacing furniture by something which is more commensurate with the function of the centre.
Ultimately, it is the will of Ministers to respond to Parliament which is the strength or weakness of our democracy. It is little use Sub-Committees of the Public Accounts Committee reporting critical findings on expenditure by Ministers if they are ignored. I trust that the Under-Secretary will take notice of the debate tonight and of the need to spend on necessity rather than superfluity.

12.33 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Eric Deakins): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) for having given me some notice of the detailed points he would raise. That enables me to deal with the matters in a fairly short speech.
The issues which the hon. Member has raised are important ones. Good financial management and a proper sense of priorities have always been important in the administration of the NHS: they are doubly so today in our constrained economic circumstances when we can no longer look for the same pace of growth in this service as in the past. I am glad of the opportunity, therefore, to put the various questions about the White Hart Training Centre into perspective.
First, let me deal with the basic facts. The centre comprises a Georgian building originally designed as a hotel. This was acquired by the National Health Service in 1952 and was used as a hospital for rheumatic diseases until 1971. The centre provides 53 bedrooms and full related training facilities. The centre is a national one, the only one of its kind in the NHS. Its primary purpose is to provide training at national level for senior staff—earning from around £4,000 to over £10,000 a year—with important management responsibilities. The main focus of the training provided at the centre will be the effective management of particular "functional" services—for example, supplies, catering, domestic services, pharmaceutical services and so on—the more

effective working together of these different functional services and the study of new or developing NHS problems and policies.
The cost of converting, furnishing and equipping the building for use as a training centre was funded by the Department as a special development under the Health Service Capital Building Vote. Conversion and structural alterations, including making good serious structural defects which had contributed to the building's closure as a hospital, cost £298,000. In addition, some £102,000 was spent on furniture, furnishings and equipment, including £11,000 for television and related equipment required for training purposes.
Four houses were also purchased at a cost of £50,000 on the basis of local advice that the centre would require to provide residential accommodation for a proportion of its catering and domestic staff. Owing to a change in the local employment situation in the area since this advice was given, the need for such accommodation has proved to be less than was estimated. One of the houses provides bed-sitting accommodation for four members of staff; two of the houses have been put on the market for sale; the future of the fourth house is still under consideration.
The centre opened for business in September of this year and its estimated gross running cost per annum is £235,000.
In order to clarify the situation in the light of figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman, I should say that the figure of approximately £80,000 was the forecast of the net annual running costs of the centre given to the hon. Member in June 1975. At that time the gross running costs were estimated at £195,000 and it was expected that an income of over £100,000 would be received from health authorities as contributions to the cost of courses their staff were attending. Price increases since the gross figure was calculated have largely contributed to the current estimate of £235,000. Although some activities at the centre will be rechargeable, in drawing up the programme for the first full year it is now envisaged that a larger proportion will be financed centrally from existing funds available in the overall training budget.
The running cost represents a cost per student week of about £150, which splits


roughly equally between training costs and hotel costs. The approved staff establishment for the centre is 45 and the number of staff at present in post 43. I am providing the hon. Member with details of the staff establishment and salary and wage scales.
The need for such a centre as the White Hart now provides had been recognised since at least 1968 and plans had been prepared for a considerably more expensive project in Cambridge. These were rejected in 1973 and the decision made to seek an alternative location. The White Hart was chosen after inspection and assessment of some half-a-dozen buildings in various parts of the country.
The decision to provide a national training and studies centre for the NHS was a direct recognition of the importance attached by my Department to its management effectiveness in the NHS its provision was certainly not an error of judgment. With its total of some 800,000 staff, the NHS is the largest employer in the country, and NHS services cost about £3,068 million per annum, of which £717 million is accounted for by the family practitioner services and £1,793 million by salaries and wages. The NHS does not direct the clinical treatment of patients by doctors, but the facilities required for the purpose and the services needed to support it together constitute an immense business enterprise, which calls for management skills and expertise of a high order if its resources are to be used cost-effectively for the intended objective, namely, the prevention and treatment of illness.
A few figures can illustrate the scale of NHS operations. For example, hospital domestic services, an unglamorous but vital service, cost some £160 million a year. A district catering manager will typically be responsible for a budget of £1 million a year. In supplies, where annual expenditure exceeds £600 million, a systematic effort is being made to improve the training of staff and to examine new methods of procurement, stores development and organisation. These are but three examples of a much wider range of services. But in these alone a 1 per cent increase in effectiveness could secure economies of £9 million per annum.
A great deal of money is at stake, therefore, in efficient management of the NHS, and training for managers and potential managers must play a vital role in securing this and related economies and improvements. There can be no question, of course, of centralised training for the very large numbers involved, and most management training within the NHS is arranged or commissioned by the authorities concerned at district, area or regional level as appropriate. But most large organisations within the public and private sectors—for example, the National Coal Board, the clearing banks, and large industrial and commercial companies—also see very good reasons to supplement local training requirements by a national centre designed specifically to meet the training needs of senior management staff. Before the opening of the centre at Harrogate, the NHS was almost alone as a major national organisation in lacking this facility.
The centre's current programme includes courses for catering and domestic managers, personnel officers, regional pharmaceutical officers, regional statisticians, directors of nurse education and staff of the remedial professions. It will be noted that the total gross running costs of the centre amount to less than one-hundredth of 1 per cent. of the total cost of NHS services.
The hon. Gentleman has also suggested, however, that, whatever the justification for the decision to establish a national training centre at Harrogate, due economy was not exercised in the arrangements to give effect to it. This is a view which I cannot accept.
It is important to recognise that the very intensive work undertaken at such a centre is not simply, or even primarily, a matter of classroom instruction and formal study. A national centre brings together senior staff with a wide range of experience in practical situations, and to provide the means of sharing this experience and the lessons which can be drawn from it is one of the essential objectives of the training. Common rooms which provide the right sort of atmosphere for discussion of problems in an informal and social environment are therefore an integral part of the requirements for a


senior staff training centre, and they need to be equipped with this in mind. Use of such descriptions as "luxury" is obviously a matter for subjective judgment. But the appointment of the rooms for general use must be such as to provide an attractive and comfortable environment. The furnishing of a centre also has to take into account that rooms and furniture will be subject to a good deal more use, wear and tear than would be expected in an ordinary home. It would be false economy to buy cheap furniture, furnishings and equipment which would need relatively soon to be replaced.
All these points were taken into account in the brief to the planning team and the consultant architect to aim for a reasonable but not extravagant standard. It was understood that the aim should be a standard equivalent to that of a three-star hotel. The present appearance of the centre must, of course, be influenced by the architectural quality of the building, the good proportions of the rooms and the fact that the furnishings are still in a new and unworn state. The cost both of the conversion work and of the furnishing and equipment was generally consistent with this brief. For example, despite price inflation, ruthless pruning by the architect and project team reduced the actual conversion cost by 17 per cent. compared with the original budget estimate. Most of the bedrooms have no shower or bathroom attached, most of the walls are simply emulsion-painted and considerable expense which would have been involved in making good poor-quality floors was eliminated by the decision to provide instead a thick carpet underlay.
For one room only, intended for use on special occasions and referred to by the hon. Gentleman as the principal's

conference room, the project team decided that a special standard of furnishing was required. Furniture for this room cost a total of £4,168, which included the cost of 12 elbow chairs purchased at a cost of £101·70 plus VAT each. As to the other particular matters asked by the hon. Gentleman, I understand that the contract price for the bar fittings and seating was £3,468·09 and that a total of 3,484 sq. yds. of carpeting was purchased for the centre at an average price, inclusive of VAT, of £3·66 per sq. yd.
Catering standards at the White Hart are also modest. Students have to make their own morning and late night tea or coffee in a communal utility room, and, of course, all drinks provided from the bar and any wine taken with meals have to be paid for by the students.
I have also compared the overall running costs of the centre at Harrogate with information provided confidentially about costs for a sample of other national training centres within both the private and public sectors providing training for senior managers. Costs in all the centres in the sample appear to be markedly higher than at Harrogate, with a cost ranging from about £200 to £276 per trainee week for the other centres as compared with our estimate of £150 for Harrogate.
Having given those detailed statistics, I hope that I have clearly explained to the hon. Member, the House and the world outside the reasons for having this centre, how we have arrived at the costs, and the measures taken to keep them within a reasonable level.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to One o'clock.